TV Schedule

Bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins

  2. sarahedwards
  3. related topics
Bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins
sarahedwards

18 responses // Bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins

  • Bill O'Reilly is scared of everything,,that's why his attitude is so bad. I feel sorry for him and the people that resonate with his perspective.
    crapshaw
  • What a tool.
    dco
    • dco
    • 7 months ago
  • I agree dco, what a delusional tool.
    withafunnyheart
  • Interesting how that was the ONLY time I have ever seen O'Reilly not swear or curse or get overly worked up and yell at someone. Also, that is the first time I have ever felt that he actually won an arguement, and I have seen alot of interesting examples of O'Reilly but am not a fan. He may be a horrible example of someone who accepts what the Bible says is true, but here it is obvious he at least has his head on straight about something. I don't see any faults with what O'Reilly said here in rhetoric, but he also is not really a believer, only someone who is speculative about Christ and in respect for the founding fathers.
    jdchristianson
  • @jdchristianson: I'm afraid "i'm throwin in with Jesus." does not constitute a "win."

    His fact that the worst humans ever were athiests is completely circumstantial and Dawkins raises this refutation.

    My problem with religions of faith, including Athiesm, is that they so often lead to self-righteous indignation and inappropriate imposition of one set of values onto others. They simply don't honor the complexity of human experience.

    That said, I feel all should be free to understand the universe as best they can, there really is no argument with the absolute nature of things. It is as it is.
    crapshaw
  • crapshaw(?) - Although I agree with you on the majority of what you said, I'm upset that you piled "atheism" in with the rest. Atheism is not by any means a fiath, and it is certainly not dogmatic. It means irreligious, or secular. To me, at least, atheism is just the rejection of the supernatural, metaphysical, or unscientific. Essentially, I don't accept anything as truth based on "faith," or "belief." I feel that this is the only alternative to religions of faith. True, there are the contemplative Eastern religio-philosophies, but I consider them on a different level entirely. I don't consider myself, or any other intelectual atheists to be overly indignant, self-righteous, or imposing on others. I agree about the absolutism bit. Absolute values restrict change. If you refuse to change your mind, and remain perpetually obstinate and ignorant, then you will not accomplish anything. On a grander scale, if humanity takes this attitude, we will not progress as a species. I think the whole of our past has made this evident. Just ask Galileo, Newton, Socrates, Copernicus, Keplar, and Darwin. Dawkins is a good man, and he is very clear-headed. He remained calm against the idiotic blather of Bill O'Reilly, and that's proof enough to me. He does not tend to express indignance to the degree that his theological counterparts do. To me, atheism is the only way to truly honor the complexity of human experience. Other atheists may differ, though. After all, it doesn't really mean anything other than the literal "without god." What group do you fit yourself into?
    dco
    • dco
    • 7 months ago
  • the age old question - which came first

    the christians or the lions?
    markspritz
  • dco - you couldn't have presented it any clearer
    markspritz
  • hey o'reilly needs to keep his trap shut on certain stands and this IS one of them!
    metalhead1986
  • @DCO Perhaps I was a bit heavy handed, lumping Atheism in with religions of faith.

    While many expressions of Atheism can take a dogmatic form, it is perhaps not inherent in the definition.

    My point is simply that there seems to be more mystery than knowledge present in the universe I inhabit. Beliefs of any kind seem limiting and transitory, as new evidence quickly renders them obsolete.

    While I would never define myself as a believer in any of the traditional faiths, I would also never define myself as an Atheist.

    I simply don't know. I am pretty sure no one else "knows" either. In fact, I am not sure I could be convinced that I "know" anything at all. Thus I don't actually know there is no "god" I simply have no evidence that there is one.

    I think Sam Harris Says it better than I can: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=208973393437250...
    crapshaw
  • @crapshaw

    You have a very mature stance I would have to admit.
    But it is easy to forget how short this life is, and sometimes we just don't consider the accounts many people have of afterlife/death experiences. Without that, I don't see why we would have much worry about any belief beyond what we see. True, how we really don't know so much "fact" about a higher intelligence beyond us.
    jdchristianson
  • We are small and with limited capacity to perceive, let alone be objective about the universe as a whole. Despite this there are many people who are compelled and need to make absolute some position based on their personal, or their groups particular view of the universe, it's origins and so forth.

    This is alright and there is no problem with it - to the point of forcing it down the throat of someone else - such as ANY religious based conflict (whether religion is the acknowledged motivation or not.)

    The world has seen many religions come and go. They are here as long as they are needed or for as long as the old dead wood clings to them. Eventually, they evolve and new religions take there place.

    The purpose of religion isn't to separate people, but a means to produce harmony among people.

    We are ants on the kitchen floor - who believe we know what it's like outside. The real question is; why are we killing each other in an effort to go outside?
    VoyagerFilms
  • I don't know.And I will never do.I am Happy :)
    jade_azul16
  • crapshaw - Atheism is taken in a different, more dogmatic form, but I would say that's a different matter entirely. In fact, it is MY brand that would not adhere, as the term "atheist" implies that it is my primary identity. In fact, I would argue rationalism would be a better title, if any is needed. I trust you go by the title of agnostic? You bring up an interesting point; that we can never truly KNOW anything. This is true, but it is also existential nonsense. The blue I see may be the yellow you see. It simply does not matter. To this extent, the term "know" is entirely arbitrary. You've got to lower your standards. We can know to the degree that a theory is proven. Sometimes theories are disproven, or re-questioned, as was punctuated equilibrium, but generally, truly empirical thought stands the test of time. Certainly, scientific concepts are far more concrete than religious ones. I am thoroughly convinced, beyond "belief," based on evidence, methodical rationality, and trial-error, that there is no God. I don't know, but I'm pretty damn sure. If you tend to agree with this thinking, I would call you an atheist to the extent that I am. Especially if you agree with Sam Harris. Ignore absolute knowledge, what do you THINK?

    jdchristianson - Are you proposing that the near death experiences some people have had are evidence of an afterlife? If so, I should think Nicki Sixx would be a devout worshipper.

    VoyagerFilms - Yes. I would add Dawkins' metaphore of the "mother of all burkas; the idea that we see but a sliver of what is out there. We can barely detect a fraction of the light spectrum, and can't even access the majority of our own minds. Absolute views of the universe, as you said, are completely useless. Things change, and when your mindset doesn't change with it, then progress will never be made. The mindset, however, should always be forward thinking. Centering your life on some hazy events two thousand years earlier is not forward thinking. Religion may not be designed to seperate, but it definitely does. I would argue that it WAS designed, however, to explain the unknown. This makes sense, given the curious nature of man, and his limited ability to answer his questions. The only problem is that, rather than actually explaining anything, religion just gives a name to the unknown: God.
    dco
    • dco
    • 6 months ago
  • I still can't believe this man has his own tv show. The fact that he states he doesn't know how tides work, or the sun itself..... this man is really an idiot.
    etosha_pent
  • Hooray for Richard Dawkins! What a brave man and a terrific mind.
    menmykoko
  • If you argue with a fool.....then you are a fool.........
    Either everything in the Universe is God or nothing is..........and it does not matter what label you apply........it is still the same.......Johnnie Hargrave......
    Relevations
  • I think if you want people to believe in something different you need to use attraction rather than promotion. Practice what you preach and live what you say. O'Really says that he is Christian and that he practices Jesus way of life. The word humility was brought up and O'Really claimed copyright.

    We are bombarded by millions of messages everyday through television, radio and the internet. Many of these messages are stress inducing but they are constantly promoting the ideas that the advertisers want us to think. This way they get us to believe in myths. Myths are conjured up daily. What are myths?

    Myths are assertions that cannot be proven with facts. They are beliefs. From the Atheist point of view God is a myth. Yet someone else in the conversation said that they "didn't know"; that life was mysterious, myths can be mysteries too. Myths are all about promotion. They must be promoted from as soon as they can be indoctrinated into the minds of children.

    If you are controlling the dissemination of a myth, you would want to have control of the media, and control of the creation of curriculum for schools so you could infiltrate your message. Myth building is a full time job on Wall Street.

    What is the biggest myth today?

    hmmm, perhaps it is the American Dream, the house in the suburbs with low mortgage payments, white picket fence, children in the yard, two car garage and two cars in the family, all the outdoor gear your storage shed can hold, diamonds on your wifes hands, neck, ankles and wrists. There are many variations on a theme, imagine your own lap of luxury. There is also the dog eat dog American Dream. You take what you want instead of getting what you need.

    This is the new breed and the new conscience of America!

    We are now Babylon America yeah we conquered Iraq former world power and empire.

    We are Christian Americans (according to OReally) when he reported that Atheism/Agnosticism is up to 12% of the population from 8% just 10 years ago (I may be quoting that wrong).

    I guess there are really three kinds of people, perhaps. Those who take what they want, those who get what they need, and those who get trampled in the process afraid to stand up and be counted.

    Where does your religion or philosophy lay in this continuum?
    jubal

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.