Richard Dawkins vs. Bill O'Reilly - 10/9/2009

Will you STOP shouting at me? - 10/9/2009
Sagemindsays...

Religion isn't Science.
Teach science in science class, (based on fact).
Teach religion at church, (based on dogma).

School is about learning and discovering. (with proof)
Church is about faith and believing. (without proof)

The two just arn't connected in any way and truely shouldn't be compared against each other...

rougysays...

BillO: I don't know all the answers, so there must be a God and we should teach that in science classes.

Dawkins: Science isn't about belief; it's about evidence.

BillO: You're a fascist.

videosiftbannedmesays...

BillO's argument stated at 1:50, is that if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus, that everyone would love one another, and it would by idyllic. Ergo, that insinuates that most crime is done by Athiests and non-Christians. But 76% of the U.S. follows Christianity or some derivative. So he's trying to state that most of the crime is committed by the remaining 24%? He's a fucking moron.

nanrodsays...

Geez Bill, an MA in Broadcast Journalism, a Masters in Public Administration from JFK School of Government at Harvard and absolutely no idea of the meaning of fascism! Tsk, tsk, tsk. And a rascist comment about being Irish. As a person who's at least as Irish as you I'm offended. We are not all loud boorish and angry.

syncronsays...

"if everyone followed the teachings of jesus christ, that we have have peace on earth..."
That has to be the biggest douchebag comment I've heard in a long time. People (attempting to) follow the teachings of jesus has caused more bloodshed throughout history than is ever redeemable through the sum of the benefits provided by religion. I'll give O'Reilly a thesis of my own, basic human morals are not derived from religion, rather has been corrupted by it since ancient times. Morals such as, please don't kill me for thinking differently as you. Humans are social creatures, so we have a primal conscience to be (relatively) kind to one another, because it is necessary for survival. As such, translations of interpretations of old bedtime stories has no authority dictating what is considered right and wrong.

Ok now that i'm genuinely pissed off, all I have left to say is, although I think Dawkins' work is of noble intent, at the end of the day, he will accomplish nothing. Directly attacking people who have been brainwashed for their entire life is not going to change their minds. The only way to rid American society of the stranglehold of religious ignorance is through better education and perhaps cutting off funding for major institutions that promote irrational thinking (that would be you, Discovery Institute).

Creaturesays...

Name that quote:
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword!"

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."

thinker247says...

I took screenshots of Dawkins' reactions to BillO, at 1:49 when he said that Jesus provides a moral framework for humanity while science does not, and at 4:12 when he uses the term "fascism" in a sense with which even Mussolini wouldn't agree.

HILARIOUS!

westysays...

Lol Dawkins actually got slightly pissed off , I think dawkins could answer back better in this situation. as a viewer if you were not educated you could perceive billo as being correct , obviously all his arguments are tired and often / easily disproven , / logically flawed.

I definatly think dawkins could have more eloquently argued with him , mind you dawkins was probably tired and could not be bothered to engage in conversation with sum one so utterly retarded, and at least he got to plug his book.

Hexsays...

What he should have said to Bill was this.

"So by your logic we should be teaching witchcraft in medicine school because medical science doesnt know everything? just to teach the alternative"

HollywoodBobsays...

Bill-O The Clown: "THAT'S FASCISM!"
Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

>> ^doremifa:
Didn't astronomers find out that the Earth was created in ~6.75 days based on red shift analysis?


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought red shift analysis was how you determined the distance of a celestial body from the viewer? The farther away the more the light spectrum shifted to the red. Or is my Sarcasm filter on the fritz again?

sholesays...

Red vs. blue shift is used to measure the speed of objects relative to earth, whatever their distance.
I think what the sarcastic post meant to illustrate was the shrouded cloak of sciencey words and ideas used to give (false)credibility to the intelligent design movement in the eyes of the common-man(tm).

Most infuriating thing about these Bill'o "interviews" is that they never touch on the issues at hand.
You can't jump between biology and cosmology for excuses and never give the chance to defend either front.
If he had his mouth stapled shut and gave the fair time for Dawkins to explain him the basics of biology and evolution, he would lose the argument then and there and he knows this.
I don't really understand the masochism of Dawkins when he knows he'll never be given the opportunity to get his word out with bullies like Bill-o.

dannym3141says...

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
BillO's argument stated at 1:50, is that if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus, that everyone would love one another, and it would by idyllic. Ergo, that insinuates that most crime is done by Athiests and non-Christians. But 76% of the U.S. follows Christianity or some derivative. So he's trying to state that most of the crime is committed by the remaining 24%? He's a fucking moron.


I'm not a Christian, i'm just relatively intelligent and i like to think i can see arguments from different angles.

You've made a schoolboy error in reasoning here. People who commit crime MAY claim to adhere to christian values, but they clearly don't by dint of comitting a crime. So take every single one of the 76% who claim to be christians, and if they are not peace loving, turn the other cheek, live and let live, etc. then they are NOT christians.

I mean i get what he's trying to say. The bible tries to persuade people to be nice to each other.. - well, it didn't and needed heavy editing, but for now let's just say it encourages living in harmony - .. and if everyone - literally every single person on the earth - lived by those standards, then the world would be peaceful and cooperative and a wonderful sight to behold for people who want peace. People who want enlightenment, however, perhaps not.

But it's like communism - it'd work if everyone was perfect, right? In fact, we wouldn't need much government, law, police, armed forces, locks on our doors or ANYTHING if everyone was perfect.

And like i always say - i don't NEED the bible to persuade me to treat others how i want to be treated, to be generous and kind and caring, to try and make a better world. I can do that on my own because I WANT TO.

That is such a devastating argument to high and mighty christians who tell me that their code teaches them to be angelic in nature and to not live in sin. I tell them so does mine, and not only did i come up with it all by myself, but i don't need the promise of a reward in the afterlife to do it AND KEEP DOING IT.

Please observe that my opinions of christianity are not here stated. The bible does not necessarily try to teach people to be nice to each other. This is only a "benefit of the doubt" example.

gwiz665says...

That's all well and good, except it really doesn't try to persuade people to be nice to each other. Sure, there are parts about that, but there are parts about stoning, slaves and a lot of retarded shit too. A Christian is someone who follows the Christian bible, not who follows some of it - otherwise you're just making it up as you go along and then you're not really Christan, but, well, for lack of a better word, neo-christian or pseudo-christian.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^videosiftbannedme:
BillO's argument stated at 1:50, is that if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus, that everyone would love one another, and it would by idyllic. Ergo, that insinuates that most crime is done by Athiests and non-Christians. But 76% of the U.S. follows Christianity or some derivative. So he's trying to state that most of the crime is committed by the remaining 24%? He's a fucking moron.

I'm not a Christian, i'm just relatively intelligent and i like to think i can see arguments from different angles.
You've made a schoolboy error in reasoning here. People who commit crime MAY claim to adhere to christian values, but they clearly don't by dint of comitting a crime. So take every single one of the 76% who claim to be christians, and if they are not peace loving, turn the other cheek, live and let live, etc. then they are NOT christians.
I mean i get what he's trying to say. The bible tries to persuade people to be nice to each other.. - well, it didn't and needed heavy editing, but for now let's just say it encourages living in harmony - .. and if everyone - literally every single person on the earth - lived by those standards, then the world would be peaceful and cooperative and a wonderful sight to behold for people who want peace. People who want enlightenment, however, perhaps not.
But it's like communism - it'd work if everyone was perfect, right? In fact, we wouldn't need much government, law, police, armed forces, locks on our doors or ANYTHING if everyone was perfect.
And like i always say - i don't NEED the bible to persuade me to treat others how i want to be treated, to be generous and kind and caring, to try and make a better world. I can do that on my own because I WANT TO.
That is such a devastating argument to high and mighty christians who tell me that their code teaches them to be angelic in nature and to not live in sin. I tell them so does mine, and not only did i come up with it all by myself, but i don't need the promise of a reward in the afterlife to do it AND KEEP DOING IT.

Truckchasesays...

I must say I am honestly impressed that Bill O would have Dawkins on his show. Most conservathon hosts (Beck) just talk crap about people that they disagree with to this extent and don't give them an opportunity to voice their opinion.

Lodurrsays...

They start the conversation from an interesting angle, the "what caused everything angle," and I'm surprised Dawkins said that physicists are "working on" where everything came from, because there can be no logical answer to that question. There's no beginning to a chain of causation. Each state of the universe, or pre-universe state, was preceded by another state.

sometimessays...

only a very small part of Christianity attempts to teach people to get along with each other. The rest of it is doctrine set up to encourage obedience to centralized power. This is all terribly ironic, since in the small portion of the bible actually dedicated to the teachings of jesus it presents the notion that because of jesus, anyone and everyone can have a direct connection to the magical abusive drunken old guy in the sky. Jesus spent much of his teachings tearing down the notion of centralized authority, and controlled access to spirituality.

Christianity became the political tool that we see today back in 325 when Roman Emperor Constantine paid a bunch of religious leaders to vote on which documents were representative of Christian faith - as long as they left room for the Emperor to be part of that power structure. It's much easier to control the people if they all worship the same god, instead of having multiple gods all with different agendas.

There's this small little bit of good stuff in the bible which is a decent chunk of what jesus says. The rest is filled with genealogies, tales of war, killings, an angry god, and Paul of tarsus, calling on the newly enlightened Christians to maintain the oppressive and intolerant orders of the old testament. All of that contrary to what jesus claimed was the entire purpose of his time on earth. Jesus talked about how his purpose was to do away with all of those old laws, and to create a new method of gaining favor with his dad (who is also somehow himself).

The bible itself is so clouded with mountains of useless if not dangerous and contrary garbage that people use to justify their own hatred. If the bible really was there to create a moral compass for people, it would be much, much shorter and clearer. It is quite possibly the most poorly written instruction manual ever created, and I've read some really terrible Engrish manuals before.

There are 1189 chapters in the bible. Does it really take 789,626 words to say "don't be a dick"? you'd think that the creator of the universe would make better use of text, and possibly reveal some genuinely useful information, like the nature of viruses and bacteria, techniques for better agriculture, methods of international diplomacy that don't involve "shoot first, ask questions later", or even something as basic as "slavery is bad".

dannym3141says...

^ You and gwiz have picked on something as though attempting to lecture me that the bible doesn't teach people to be nice to each other. So please let me draw attention to what i said, because that isn't it.

"The bible tries to persuade people to be nice to each other.. - well, it didn't and needed heavy editing, but for now let's just say it encourages living in harmony"

Basically, my point is:
It doesn't matter exactly what the bible tries to teach. If everyone in the entire world lived EXACTLY AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION OR FAULT BY THOSE SAME STANDARDS then everyone would be perfect. I could write my own lengthy book about how to conduct yourself and substitute it for the bible, and this would still hold true.

>> ^gwiz665:
That's all well and good, except it really doesn't try to persuade people to be nice to each other. Sure, there are parts about that, but there are parts about stoning, slaves and a lot of retarded shit too. A Christian is someone who follows the Christian bible, not who follows some of it - otherwise you're just making it up as you go along and then you're not really Christan, but, well, for lack of a better word, neo-christian or pseudo-christian.

gwiz665says...

^Well, then I still think you say the same thing: If everybody acted as they should according to the bible, then everybody would be perfect and everything would be nice. Your assumption, which I assume is because BillO does the same, is flawed, because it really doesn't say that.

I agree that laws, moral codes etc. can always only be guidelines - no one is perfect, we're all flawed to some degree, so no matter what we believe we will always break some rules.

Xaielaosays...

Yes the world would be idyllic to be sure if everyone was a devout christian... NOT!

First of all the world would be in shambles after all the major religions fought with each other and eventually Christianity wiped out every single society that doesn't hold Christianity as a state religion and put to death anyone who wasn't completely devout. Then perhaps there would be peace.

That is until the different factions and denominations of Christianity realized they disagree with each other, and the world war would start again.

And if that wouldn't be the biggest example of Fascism ever, I don't know what would be.


Really, what a ludicrous statement. I once asked a devout christian if the world would be better if every human within it was exactly the same, a copy of Adam and Eve. Without even thinking he told me 'Absolutely YES!' lol.

And is it just me or did Dawkin's points just fly right over O'reilly's head?

HadouKen24says...

>> ^dannym3141:
^ Basically, my point is:
It doesn't matter exactly what the bible tries to teach. If everyone in the entire world lived EXACTLY AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION OR FAULT BY THOSE SAME STANDARDS then everyone would be perfect. I could write my own lengthy book about how to conduct yourself and substitute it for the bible, and this would still hold true.


No. A code fraught with internal contradictions would not lead to a perfect world if followed by everyone; the contradictions would cause inevitable irresolvable conflicts.

Christian ethics is such a code. For example, Christians are told to "love everyone," and that God himself "loves everyone," yet it is a point of Christian doctrine that some will be eternally damned by God himself. Indeed, by Jesus himself, not the Father, as modern pastors seem to have forgotten. Paul himself makes clear this relationship, and it was reflected in early Christian iconography; depictions of Christ as Pantokrator show him in his role as judge. Eternal damnation is incompatible with both love and justice. Hence, mutually contradictory resolutions arise, impossible to decide between except by gut preference.

Such a world could not be perfect.

ravermansays...

at 1.49 his reaction was the same as mine...

Thesis? Thesis?!! Seriously... you're going to use a scientific term that relates to unproven assumptions that require empirical proof?

oh the irony...

TheFreaksays...

>> ^syncron:
...although I think Dawkins' work is of noble intent, at the end of the day, he will accomplish nothing. Directly attacking people who have been brainwashed for their entire life is not going to change their minds.

But those people must not go unchallenged in the public forum. I do not think he believes he can change Bill O's mind, rather he provides an alternative view point to challenge the notion that their opinions are universally accepted.

Many of us grew up brainwashed to believe the fairy tales presented to us in our youth. When cognitive dissonance begins peaking through the cracks it's voices like Dawkin's which rise to the surface and point the way back to rational thought. His purpose is not to change the minds of the willfully ignorant but to be a guide to those trying to unshackle themselves from ignorance.

siftbotsays...

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by SlipperyPete.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More