Richard Dawkins interviewed by Bill O'Reilly
tags:
Stumble ThisFrom tonight. (April 23/2007)
Bill O'Reilly was surprisingly pleasant (for Bill O'Reilly).
However, all evidence points to Hitler being a Christian (Not that that has anything to do with him being a monster, just as if he had been an atheist. As well Hitler held strange neo-pagan beliefs [in fashion with many people at that time] yet we don't blame paganism). But let's assume he wasn't a Christan, he certainly believed that Christianity was necessary for the kind of world he wanted to create. If you read Mein Kampf (If you do I recommend having a brick wall handy to bang your head against for relief) and many of Hitler's other writings you will see he talks repeatedly of Christianity and his support for it.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." - Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Monsters are monsters for many reasons. Most Christians would never support the holocaust, nor would most atheists, nor Pagans, nor Shintoists, nor....... etc, etc.
And when Christians make the "Stalin, and Mao argument" they are pissing on their own shoes. Most Christians will first admit that "Yes, Christianity did some horrible things," (Crusades, Inquisition, The Pope not standing up against Hitler, etc, etc.). "but atheism has been involved in some of the most brutal atrocities in recent history". With the overall suggestion that it will happen again with atheism. Well if that's the argument what's stopping Christianity from doing it again? Or any other religion that has perpetrated atrocities? It's a poor argument against atheism. But it is a very good argument for not trusting people in power, always questioning our leaders and thinking for ourselves.
Bill O'Reilly was surprisingly pleasant (for Bill O'Reilly).
However, all evidence points to Hitler being a Christian (Not that that has anything to do with him being a monster, just as if he had been an atheist. As well Hitler held strange neo-pagan beliefs [in fashion with many people at that time] yet we don't blame paganism). But let's assume he wasn't a Christan, he certainly believed that Christianity was necessary for the kind of world he wanted to create. If you read Mein Kampf (If you do I recommend having a brick wall handy to bang your head against for relief) and many of Hitler's other writings you will see he talks repeatedly of Christianity and his support for it.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." - Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Monsters are monsters for many reasons. Most Christians would never support the holocaust, nor would most atheists, nor Pagans, nor Shintoists, nor....... etc, etc.
And when Christians make the "Stalin, and Mao argument" they are pissing on their own shoes. Most Christians will first admit that "Yes, Christianity did some horrible things," (Crusades, Inquisition, The Pope not standing up against Hitler, etc, etc.). "but atheism has been involved in some of the most brutal atrocities in recent history". With the overall suggestion that it will happen again with atheism. Well if that's the argument what's stopping Christianity from doing it again? Or any other religion that has perpetrated atrocities? It's a poor argument against atheism. But it is a very good argument for not trusting people in power, always questioning our leaders and thinking for ourselves.
Anyone know what the answer to the question was when proposed to the computer built to answer the question of whether or not there was a god, posed thusly....."Isthereagod"?......
Like a cage match that needs two more wrestlers, this is the new breed of programming mash-up.....ala lifeboat....."Who can survive the onslaught!!? There can only be only victor!!!.....OR CAN THERE???!!!! Sharpton and Indira, battle it out with Ron Jeremy and Bill Maher.....the 21 century coliseum games, for armchair delusionals.....
"having a brick wall handy to bang your head against for relief"-
love his too, how true also of sporting events, the fans and fetishes, all relief valves of societies contrived and controlled...Hitler was a madman, no, he tunnel visioned himself down the ultimate path of any sentient beings' destruction, who has no governor...oh, and he was the ultimate asshole.......
So...to hang on Hitler, do you make an assumption or read between the words????.....Propaganda of the kind that is broadcast for mass consumption today is the Antichrist in all her splendor.....Babylon, baby, fill yer' head with Lucky Charms and you'll be doing yourself a better dose.......
This vids an example of
Interchangable pundits of self, expressing the current paradigm in familiar, cabalistic, semantic bleats, ....an editorial, fer crissakes.......
The Name tag reads.
Richard Dawkins: Atheist
Not even "Scientist" let alone, "ethologist" or "evolutionary biologist"
O'Reilly's audience only needs to know one thing. "Atheist"
just plain evil Atheist with horns growing out and his fangs and shit
I feel bad for Dawkins, having to sit there and listen to the rantings of such a condescending, impolite, mental midget of a host. I just hope he (uuuh... Dawkins) did it on a lark or to sell a few more books, and didn't have any preconceived notion that this was going to be anything but an opportunity for this blowhard to grandstand and impress his FlOX of sheeple. Four minutes... typical hit-and-run Faux News format. Don't give him time to answer any questions too completely or deeply, make some asinine comments, walk over what he says, chuckle condescendingly as if he is just "way out there", more asinine comments that ignore history outright or demonstrate a complete misunderstanding (or remanufacturing) of history (cuz who's gonna check?), cut to commercial.
BTW, PostMortem, took me almost as long to read your summary as watch the video.
Same thing with O'Reilly, he was just setup for this interview through his producers.But he probably never heard of Dawkins.
"Who is this Dawkins? What? an Athiest?! Great! Time to impress my audience with glorious Jesus talk"
I would have captioned him "Professional Atheist".
Oh yeah and O'Reilly: The scientific answer for the "beginning somewhere" involves proteins, electricity, and information theory. 'LOOK IT UP' ya jackass.
Does this mean ALL atheists are murderers? No. But the absence of successful atheist societies in all of recorded history points to this: those who place themselves or the State above the Creator (or Creation itself), lose. And deserve to.
quantumushroom: Can you define "successful society"? I thought not. For a list of current, stable nations with a high percentage of atheists, please see this page or Google "Zuckerman atheism". You are blinded by your own ignorance.
When you point to the atrocities committed by atheists, you make yourself look like a fool. There have been uncounted atrocities committed in the name of various deities throughout history. Point your finger at atheists, and they point right back at you.
why were they both so.... nice to each other? both men have a reputation for being extremely unruly and rude. Dawkins slightly less so but still.... no insults for the "god-boy"? weird.... I mean, I'm glad they both could spend at least four minutes being decent to another human being they are diametrically opposed to but wow.