bill,oreilly,factor,interview,debate,richard,dawkins,atheism,atheist Richard Dawkins vs. Bill O'Reilly - 10/9/2009
tags: bill, oreilly, factor, interview, debate, richard, dawkins, atheism, atheist
Will you STOP shouting at me? - 10/9/2009
Comments 
playlists with this video Fox News Scandals/Bias/Stupid shit they do by Hex
• Evolution by garmachi
• Dawkins / Atheism by eric3579
• Atheism and religion by gwiz665
who voted for this video JiggaJonson
- eric3579
- jiyanibi
- theali
- enoch
- mkone
- UsesProzac
- Sagemind
- EndAll
- shuac
- rougy
- sepatown
- TheeAlien
- Aniatario
- Bruti79
- syncron
- blankfist
- TheSofaKing
- sirex
- nanrod
- dag
- Creature
- thinker247
- sometimes
- Fiver2
- acidSpine
- smiley
- chilaxe
- demon_ix
- rubadub
- doogle
- griefer_queafer
- Hex
- Lann
- mrsid
- MrFisk
- RedSky
- garmachi
- PoweredBySoy
- Raigen
- gwiz665
- hugith
- doremifa
- HollywoodBob
- erikwdavis
- rgroom1
- jfxz27
- Ornthoron
- kwaran
- mefa
- vaporlock
- Djevel
- smbot31
- captmorgano
- Mixaster
- therealblankman
- daxgaz
- Seric
- shole
- MycroftHomlz
- Fusionaut
- jimnms
- crotchflame
- cdominus
- CrushBug
- sme4r
- Skeeve
- enon
- Lendl
- geo321
- JonnyK
- Crosswords
- evil_disco_man
- Ryjkyj
- Throbbin
- Plonq
- blackout
- krazyety
- brain
- guitarwolf
- jdbates
- NetRunner
- Arg
- d3bas3r
- ShakeyMcBones
- BoneRemake
- BoneyD
- Zifnab
- rottenseed
- charliem
- Shepppard
- Issykitty
- conan
- JesseoftheNorth
- Tymbrwulf
- BreaksTheEarth
- cybrbeast
- iL0VmyDr
- Fade
- bareboards2
- calvados
- slafleur
- Majortomyorke
- EDD
- buzz
- nibiyabi
- oohahh
- raverman
- swedishfriend
- Trancecoach
- Sketch
- Almanildo
- littledragon_79
- Opus_Moderandi
- lordneptune
- potchi79
- justathinker
- oxdottir
- volumptuous
- dw1117
- asynchronice
- fuzzyundies
- Spoon_Gouge
- vyka11
- NobleOne
- Phooz
- Hive13
- poolcleaner
- DocDarm
- drattus
- felix
- dingens
- Haldaug
- longde
- SlipperyPete
who has this post bookmarked EDD
- Ornthoron
- gwiz665
Richard Dawkins Vs. Bill O'Reilly - 10/9/2009 Related Videos
| 
Stumble This
It's like talking to a sawdust mound!
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...
Dawkins: Science isn't about belief; it's about evidence.
BillO: You're a fascist.
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).
"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."
HILARIOUS!
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.
"So by your logic we should be teaching witchcraft in medicine school because medical science doesnt know everything? just to teach the alternative"
"Awww, he's trying. Cuuute!"
Awesome *quality.
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?
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.
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.
Loud doesn't equal right.
Why didn't Dawkins just ask him where god came from?
>> ^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.
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".
"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.
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.
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?
Closeted righties seriously don't even know the meaning of the tripe they vomit.
Priceless. Welcome to the truthiness zone, Richard.
Biggest fail for the usage of fascism EVER.
Read this comment before watching the video. I almost did a spit take when he said it. Out of left field.
huh?
^ 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.
Thesis? Thesis?!! Seriously... you're going to use a scientific term that relates to unproven assumptions that require empirical proof?
oh the irony...
Is that anything like interior design? Sounds like we'd need an O'Reilly eye for the straight guy.
...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.