I just think it's funny the RD equates 'intelligence' with 'scientist'. the God Delusion dismisses all other disciplines (philosophy, artistry, history, theology, economics, linguistics, journalism in this example) as pointless, effectively. I think, regardless of religious stance, we can all agree that this isn't a good starting point for society.
I totally disagree. Ignorant pundits like O'Reilly only gratify and encourage their opponents. For the same reason, I friggin' love Santorum. If I have to argue common sense, I want senseless schmucks like these to oppose me.
PS: Bill O'Reilly's interviews is like a yelling exercise. He asks a question and then when the person responds he interrupts them and talks over them.
I don't understand the "debate". I support science, I think it's great, it is probably the most valuable tool in this world. Just because it can't explain something doesn't mean I fill it in with "God did it". The point I miss is how science contradicts a deity? That's like saying art can disprove mathematics. They are two completely different studies. How can understanding how the physical world works, ever "disprove" anything spiritual? (and vice versa)
@MeLlamoBradly Enjoy your god-of-the-gaps. Also, enjoy not understanding autocatalysis, chemical hypercycles and, generally, emergence of complexity in multi-agent systems. You miss the point because you think a "bottom-up" model of the Universe is compatible with a "top-down" model of the universe. Have a great day, sir.
@morphemeable Also, try re-reading my comment. With your highly superior intellect I would assume you read the part where I said "Just because [science] can't explain something doesn't mean I fill it in with "God did it".
I agree with Dawkins about not being influenced by rating, on anything really. However, scrap O'Reilly. Let him debate William Lane Craig. We are still waiting. Or maybe a Third formal round with Dr. John Lennox of Oxford....
OK. Then why do you go on his show every time you have a new book to sell to the public?
Answer Because making money is more important to you than your convictions. You are an atheist because that is how you make lots of money i.e. selling books and givings lectures. I have also seen past interviews when you thought of the possibility of a Grand Designer. So, stop with your Bullshit. You make money being an atheist. period.
@MarcoA1111 There's nothing wrong with getting your work promoted, even if you have to go on a show you dislike. It's not like he kisses Bill's ass, they both go at it in sometimes a very heated debate.
Also, Dawkins still believes in the possibility of a Grand Designer. His problem is with man-made religion.
@mattjames2111 There is no "belief" in that possibility, it's always there, but he also says it's something like a 0.00000000000000001% chance that there is a god, and by god, obviously he doesn't mean any known god from a retarded religion.
Bill is closed minded. Fox news is, well, stupid to say the least. I can't begin to understand why people don't explore past a simplistic and incorrect version of science which was thought up 2000 years ago. If you just let your preconceptions go you'll see life in the most amazing way instead of being stuck inside a church talking to something that isn't there. Talk to yourself, it's a lot more sane.
You know when you play fallout 3 .. and the enclave is is talking shit on the radio i mean they could of just put bill o reilly right there for president .. controlling the ignorant crowd ..
@LibertyMaidens Is it me or are games now a days tryin to get people aware of our future, like deus ex has a radio station talking about the NWO throughout the game, it's kind of weird.
@SmokeAlexOut i haven't played deus ex out yet. but i played it and liked it didn't get to the radio station part but games just put religion and atheïsm into their games like dragon age origins .. you got leliana who believe's in a creator you also have some very cool options to talk more into the subject about believes and facts .. morrigan a witch who is a atheïst and STEN who is more likely to be some kind of muslim or dwarfs who believe in the foundation of their family members in stone..
@SmokeAlexOut And at some point in the story leliana is questions by some sort of all knowing ghost about the doubt and reason of her believes and she just ignores it in the game .. and you can also question her she can disaprove of your actions and even leave you .. not gonna go in detail here no spoilers but .. and i loved it Dragon age 2 didn't really have that .. started to go the mass effect kind of talking wich really sucks it's just one way or the other ..
@SmokeAlexOut In Dragon age origins you had a choice you didn't know if the person was gonna dislike the subject .. in mass effect and dragon age 2 it shows you what is good and what is wrong .. and alot of people like this system but where is the moral in that ? if the game already tells you this is good and this is bad ..
I think alot of people like it because then they are certain just like religious people ..
Listen to me atheists! You will go to HELL. Believe or not, God exists, hell is real. If you don't believe the existence of him, he will send you to hell. You will BURN IN THE LAKE OF THE FIRE ETERNALLY!! No one will help you. Now! Evolution is a GREAT LIE! Science is a liberal conspiracy. Scientists are satanic atheists who wants to destroy our values. No matter what you think. Hell is REAL! Believe before you die, or burn in hell. God will NEVER forgive you!
Bill O'Reilly is not stupid, has made a business of stupidly ranting what uninformed people take to be truth. I would say that while he is not as smart as Dawkins or Hitchens he is smart enough to make stupidity profitable.
@thinkboutit In this event I would like Dawkins to be spacific and talk about the issues but as always liberals resort to S.I.N. shift the subject, ignore the facts, and name call. He simply called him names. Anyway, why do you think Bill O'Reilly is dumb?
@ScreenMonkeyMan It's hard to debate evolution when the word "theory" keeps popping up. Isn't strange how people can only see what they choose to, not even attempting to wipe the thought plate clean to see another view, ultimately finding more truth? Have a good day boss.
@thinkboutit Meaningless slander. It's counterproductive, and it's not truth. Some people take life seriously and tire of the school playground antics of mud slinging. Have a good one.
@bulldogbell1980 *Dawkins and ratings don't earn themselves, the way the show is presented earns the ratings. Americans tend to go for more drama filled shows rather than intelligent. For example, Jersey Shore over anything on the History Channel.
@MaRTiiaNN I'm guessing that there aren't many Americans that watch Jersey Shore and then can't wait to go hear what O'Reilly has to say. History Channel and then O'Reilly seems a bit more probable, but that's speaking more from my lifestyle, and my family's, and my friends. Have a good day.
@IWEEW He gives you facts instead of fairytales and I'll tell you to your face, anyone who believes fairytale over fact are both stupid and wrong. Your butthurt circular argument won't win this one.
@ponchred Really? He loathes religion and displays a shockingly insensitive amount of intellectual arrogance. People were arrogant of the belief that Earth was the center of the universe, just as they were of the planet being flat, and just as they are now of Darwinian evolution and global warming. Do you see a trend emerging? I'm skeptical of any scientific arrogance and reject the suggestion that someone is unintelligent for choosing to believe in a God.
@IWEEW But plenty of people loathe religion. I share the sentiment. It's not a good thing. I can't wait until it's a museum exhibit filed under 'silly things we used to believe' just like Zeus and dancing around bonfires. You percieve intelligent argument as intellectual arrogance but it's not. It's fact. You mistakenly lump Dawkins comments in with ridiculous old world concepts such as a 'flat earth'. Believing in a religion is exactly that. Believing that a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds (cont)
@IWEEW (cont) Believing a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds knew anything that we do not about the universe is akin to 'believing the world is flat'. There is no fact in believing there's a God. Most God concepts are illogical. The most logical one was the Ancient Greek concept of Zeus and if you said you believed in him in this day and age you'd be laughed out of the room. Evolution is supported by fact. Fact that when presented to one such as yourself you just put your fingers in your ears (cont)
@IWEEW (cont) You just put your fingers in your ears and make the 'la la la' noise. We have irrefutable evidence for evolution now, but because you don't understand it, you don't believe it because mentally you're so connected to believing that is was magically zapped into place by a divine being, one who there is no proof for. Dawkins is very correct when he points out that if you were born in India, you'd believe in Vishnu, if you were born in Iran you'd believe in Allah. Oh, but this (cont)
@IWEEW (cont) This is all nonsense to you because for some reason that you cannot dictate (only feel in your imagination) is that Jesus exists and God is good even though there's no evidence for either, as there isn't any for Vishnu or Allah or any made up God concept. Just old books written by men who thought they knew what this cosmic boogeyman wanted. So it's not 'scientific arrogance', you're intimidated by superior intellect and because it attacks your silly belief it intimidates you.
@IWEEW In fact, it's people like you who don't use their intellect and openly encourage others not to use their intellect and THIS is one of the main reasons why religion is a toxin in our society. Believe there's a God if you will, but don't tell people you know there's one, or that you know what it wants or desires. You couldn't possibly know. Science doesn't give answers but nor does religion and religion will tell you it has said answers when they are made up with 0% proof.
@ponchred You have a difficult time understanding why someone chooses to have faith, and why it's even called "faith" and not "logical belief." I get it---you think it's bad to believe anything without evidence. You hate the concept of being told what to do by a church, because the suggestion that homosexuality and abortion are bad things upsets you greatly. I have a faith because it gives me hope and comfort. Stop attacking me and arrogantly crowning yourself more intelligent.
@IWEEW No, I don't. YOU have a problem listening to reason. I don't think it's bad to believe something without evidence. I believe it's bad to tell people that you know the mysteries of life with certainty and pass that certainty on to other people. I think it's immoral to take those people who buy said certainty and make money off them, to gain 'praise and worship'. So you don't 'get it'. And no, I don't think you're intelligent enough to 'get it', but it has nothing to do with crowning (cont)
@Oleander410 You're the one replying to one line and admittedly not reading anything else, like the context you moron. No, I don't think it's 'bad' to believe something without evidence. It doesn't make you a 'bad' person, misguided yes, but 'bad' - no. Next time, learn to read fuckwit.
@IWEEW (Cont) It has nothing to do with me 'crowning' myself anything, it purely has to do with your shitty attitude towards plain and simple evidence. When you mock a simple yet proven theory like evolution purely because it flies in the face of your belief (which is 3000 years old and created by sheperds) it paints you to be a gigantic retard. Look ar the research of the island lizards, one of the greatest proofs of evolution. You can't fault it, unless you're ignorant. (cont)
@IWEEW (Cont) There is NO OTHER way you can put it. If you're being stupid, and someone points that out, it's not a crime against humanity. It's actually someone caring and attempting to do you a service. But that's wrong and horrible to you because you don't get to have your cake. I'm sick to death of people such as yourself who just want to childishly hold on to a security blanket with no reason to do so. And this isn't to 'attack' you, it's to help you see reason. I'm sorry if you're unable.
@IWEEW For the record, I love how you religious types instantly accuse people like me of 'not understanding faith'. It's laughable. It's like you want to say 'see, I'm smart too' even though it just makes you look like more of a dunce. You are currently participating in a losing argument. I'd stop right now if I were you.
@ponchred You're actually the one who is much more emotional and continues to level personal attacks against his opponent. I'm totally calm and really couldn't care less about your opinions, because they mean absolutely nothing to me. I think it's hilarious that you're in the middle of a hissy fit only because I challenged your boyfriend, Dawkins. If the research of island lizards means something to you, that's great. It gives you absolutely no right to be arrogant.
@IWEEW So you're better than me because you're calm and I'm succinctly expressing myself with more than one post? Oh I see. Astounding logic. More posts = more emotion, that's just a certainty. Ah, and now I'm in a homosexual relationship with Richard Dawkins? That's mature of you. What gave it away? The island lizard research doesn't give you a right to be ignorant. Which you totally are. Instead you could take note, and admit that evolution has legs. But you won't. Because you're a moron.
@IWEEW Furthermore, why do our current temperaments even matter? I'm not angry, I'm laughing at your ignorance here! See how easy it is to pontificate over a piece of irrelevant data? Why does that matter in the debate? Why not instead say something tangible to back yourself up rather than to play on personal emotion? LOL.
@IWEEW Dawkins calls O'Reilly an idiot because he is, not because of his beliefs.
Belief that the Earth was at the centre of the universe/flat came about without the modern scientific method. Evolution and global warming are however the result of the scientific method. No this is not a trend. The random guesses of bronze age peoples are not the same as the vast amounts of research and study of modern science.
@IWEEW There is no "we thought this, then found out we were wrong, then thought this and found out that was wrong too, so why should we think what we know now is true" trend. Scientific advancements NEVER show we were totally wrong in the past, they only make us more right. A theory will only be improved, not over turned. This is not arrogance. Example: Newton mechanics and the theory of relativity.
@Pirate44444 As a historian, I can tell you that this statement is wrong. For example, Alchemy was considered a valid science once upon a time. There was also once a time in which we thought that rain created frogs and that maggots spawned on rotten meat. We came to those two conclusions by a scientific method. We saw the meat, then later we saw maggots on it. Thusly, people assumed based on the evidence they had.
That is what science is. Assuming based on the evidence you have, then adjusting
@Arborem Alchemy was considered a valid science BEFORE the modern scientific method. Science is not "assuming based on the evidence, then adjusting." Maybe it was when people believed in spontaneous generation. The modern scientific method is this: Create a hypothesis based on evidence. Collect more evidence. Try to disprove your hypothesis. Have anonymous peers review your evidence. Publish it. Have other scientists try do disprove your hypothesis/do the same experiments to get the same results
@Arborem So I should have been more specific. Obviously there are things we thought were true in the past, and now know are completely wrong. What you missed out on is since the birth of modern science, we don't do this.
So as a science undergrad, I can tell you your historical facts may be right, but your understanding of science is wrong.
@Arborem oh yeah just to illustrate. Alchemists did not publish their findings, they were not subsequently tested by alchemists, nor were they peer-reviewed before hand. Also I don't think there was actually a hypothesis or theory behind alchemy, it was just attempting to turn lead into gold. So really there was nothing factually wrong about a series of futile experiments. As for the spontaneous generation thing, that was not tested properly, the results were not reviewed and published etc.
@Pirate44444 To start this reply, I would like to say it is difficult to take seriously an argument started with the words "oh yeah." Alchemists did release their findings. The German alchemist who was an inspiration for the character of Dr. Frankenstein was credited with finding an elixir that increased vitality. There was also scientific method and formula behind alchemy. It is only when you start reading about the Philosopher's Stone that these concepts are thrown out.
@Arborem Right, but a lot of alchemists kept their work secret because they didn't wanted to be first successful alchemist. So, I probably should have mentioned that some alchemists did make over discoveries that were published, this was the birth of chemistry. On reflection that wasn't a great argument so I'm willing to retract that.
@Arborem In any case, alchemy was not performed under the modern scientific method and by today's standards would never be considered science. The results of alchemists who were willing to share their findings were not put under adequate scrutiny as they would be today. There may well have been a "scientific method" and it may well have been considered science, (although the word science wasn't actually used until the 19th century) but does not conform to the modern scientific method.
@Pirate44444 Alright, after doing a little bit of research (probably not enough), I found that you are right. There is no example of theories in Modern Science (being defined by the use of the modern scientific method) being 100% disproven. However, the last point that I can debate is the notion of alchemists keeping their work secret. Yes, many did, and so do modern scientists. I have read of examples up to the late 1900's of scientists stealing each other's work. Many must practice secrecy.
@Arborem Oh yes certainly scientists keep there work secret, but they do publish eventually. I was under the impression that many alchemists took their secrets to the grave. Then again if they did that I don't see how we would know about them... Maybe I'm wrong on that bit, you're the historian.
@Pirate44444 While this may not be the formal scientific method that you want to see, it was still a legitimate science that followed sets of rules and logic. Modern Science in being less bold gives me less examples of things being completely disproven. However, I am confident that with research I can find cases of theories being completely disproven, as religious ideals are more or less disproven.
@Arborem Yes of course, I accept that. What I am saying is, with the modern scientific method, there are no examples of actual theories being completely over turned. I am confident you won't find any. They have to actually be theories, not just hypotheses.
@Stevoukos yeah o reilly sounded like a kid arguing with another kid on the playground... "because i don't believe a meteor came and 'made everything happen", etc...
@Stevoukos That's how Bill O'Reilly treats all his guests who are not right wing conservative religious people... I have no idea how someone so dumb can have a show on TV
@indianslummer O'Reilly makes the rest of fox news look like liberal Atheists man, the dude is a disgusting cunt of a man and loves to spread misinformation!
@imshippyupup People often find superior intellect intimidating so I can see how you'd feel that way. He doesn't say anything mean, only facts which are percieved as being mean. But he's a very nice chap. He wanted to start a group called 'Atheists for Jesus for crying out loud!
He did a talk at my school a few years ago, and I'm sorry but to hear the way he speaks about any belief other than his own, I can see how terribly clouded his vison is.
He can't accept any other theory than the one he believes in.
He then preceded to call the Religeous Moral Philisophical studies teacher stupid for believing any other theory for the Earths creation.
@ACrissCrossFILMS That's a hard opinion to agree with as he only delivers facts. Religious nutters are the ones that spew opinions. What kind of a school subject is Religious Moral Philosophical Studies? Could any school offer a more useless subject?
The Bible was Created and Written by Jews to Control the Masses with "FEAR!" and still do; and Now; the same Hidden (from public scrutiny) Parasites have now taken Control of the masses by Owning the World's Mass-Media with the same basic principles of mass Propaganda; Lies and Fear and who will publicly intimidate and ridicule anyone who tries to questions it, or them! It's time to Wake-UP World before "They" finally make Their "British Empire" Sorry; "New World (ENSLAVING) Order" a REALITY!
lol, Craig LOVES to run around bragging that he's a "professional philosopher." Know what? None of the real professional philosophers out there...the bioethicists, the scholars, the social studies professors...none of them have ever described themselves as a "professional philosopher." Craig just says that because he's an egomaniac.
@SirKickz He has said that - but not essentially since he is egotistical. I am pretty darn sure you rushed into that conclusion. He is a professional, he has only said that because he is under constant attack from the internet community (which is not philosophically bright at all)... I hope we aren't starting to live in a world when being a professional is considered being egotistical - based on very little substance.
The only thing he's professional at is extending basic human intuition into realms where basic human intuition has been shown to fail. The Kalam Cosmological Argument that he waves around like an oversized dong has been refuted by so many people it isn't even funny, hell, I can refute it, and I'm just some random dude. He's a professional at straw man arguments and refusing to address the actual points his opponents make, simply dismissing them arrogantly as irrelevant.
@SirKickz Who cares what a philosopher has to say? It's a nonsensical profession. I'd rather listen to an educated individual than some bloke overflowing with circular bullshit opinions on everything. Philosophers may have been valid in the stone ages, but here in the 21st century they're a waste of time.
@koss121 and an evolutionary biologist. I don't think he's afraid of debating Craig, just that the debates have become mundane and repetative between Atheists and Creationists/Theists
@koss121 Dawkins is not 'afraid' to debate Craig. What a childish thought. Did you ever think he's just sick of having to refute utter nonsense? Dawkins has succinctly expressed his points (repeatedly) and there's nothing left to say.
What we need (what the american people need) is a change in society so that people like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck don't get good ratings. It seems to me that anyone who are satisfied with listening to these people lack the basic ability to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is not. I think the problem is the american education system, there should be more focus on educating everyone.
Why has Richard, smart as he is, wasted some of his finite time on earth participating in at least THREE "ineffective" discussions on O'Reilly's show? Would he admitt that either he played a part in worsening public discussions (per the second question) or that he wasn't smart enough to size up Bill O'Reilly after the first and second encounters? By the way, this video was posted last June and Dawkins was on O'Reilly again in October. Fucking hypocrite.
@mjr8550 That's hardly being a hypocrite - he'd LIKE there to be more intelligent hosts but I suppose he'll take what he can get. I wouldn't say they were entirely ineffective, maybe there was next to no exchange of views or new ground broken due to O'Reilly's donkey-like demenaor, but it's better than not appearing at all.
I think there's a vid somewhere, or a question in a Q&A, where someone asks why he bothers but I can't remember the answer, it may have been due to his publicist.
@Sniperdude12a msnbc.com just put a article up about 200 priests being accused of sexually abusing children. apparently one of the priests told the child he was raping that "this is what gods love feels like".
and you still think religion doesn't make the world a better place.
He did actually sort of lose against Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly debates are always interesting, because you never know if the object will cope with his bias
@sniperdude12a That's just wrong. If indeed you have read Mein Kampf, you will find it is rife with symbolism and religious justification. If Hitler wasn't stopped he would have been another Kim Jong Il.Your argument is weak.
lol its in the advantage of Dawkins if he wants to win a debate to debate a less intelligent person. I mean everyone with an iq above 90 could easily see that this man is wrong, anyone with an iq above 110 could refute most of his work, anyone with an iq above 130 with destroy this guy, and anyone with an iq above 150, he's to scared of to debate. i'm just saying, after John Lennox..... either way, it's interesting to watch debates of dawkins in order to sharpen the brain.
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
I often wonder why people hate so much on Richard Dawkins. He seems like such a nice, kind, learned man who only says the things he does out of concern for the development of humanity. The way O'Reilly treated him was truly shameful. Crass and nonsensical.
@ponchred I'm an atheist who finds Dawkins' incensed incredulity at religious belief to be condescending at best. By watching him you get to see an anomalous type of asshole, the soft-spoken one.
@imshippyupup Then again, I think being an atheist has nothing to do with being a nice guy. Richard Dawkins could be the worst man breathing, but the idea is to hear what he says, not to like him. At least this is how I think.
@ponchred I'm not defending O'Reilly, but people like Dawkins scare the absolute shit out of me. He's a person who hates religion with every fiber of his being and uses his credentials to essentially say that anyone who doesn't agree with him is stupid and wrong. He's the same kind of people who thought questioning the planet being flat was outrageous. History will probably credit people like Dawkins more with scientific repression than any religious person.
@sniperdude12a are you trolling? bill O'Reilly actually thinks it is fascism if you don't teach religion in a science class. he doesn't even know how the tides work!
@juzdamkrazy1 are you trolling? First of all, Bill O'Reilly doesn't think that the moon got there without God's help, and second of all I question how intelligent Dawkins actually is since he avoids explaining the science of tidal forces to O'Reilly, and how the Earth rotates. Also, I think Bill was correct when he said that it takes as much faith to be an atheist, and Dawkins simply passed the onus back to Bill instead of an actual rebuttle, a few times.
@sniperdude12a he didn't tell him about those things because it is a waste of Dawkins time. why educate someone who doesnt know science of that simplicity. if you don't actually think Dawkins is intelligent than you are the troll here, not me. i know O'reilly doesnt think the moon got there without gods help you fool, he is a idiot and just goes to show how stupid christians can be. watch any video of Dawkins and you will understand why he is great. and besides
@juzdamkrazy1 and besides, if Dawkins did try to rebuttle, than O'reilly would have just shouted over him like he does in all of his videos. if O'reilly doesnt agree with someone than he wont let them get their point across.
OH MY GOD!! it takes no faith at all to be an atheist!! you are an idiot and obviously believe in god. the only proof christians have is the bible, and everything they know comes from it. Science has substantial evidence for whatever scientists claim. Religion makes me sick
@juzdamkrazy1 I can't help but be amused that your replies show 10 times the arrogance I mentioned in this video. To think that you clearly believe that the world would be any different without Christianity is truly foolish - take the First World War it's bases were in nationalism and militarism, not religion, and it caused far worse suffering than any war caused by religion to date. My point is ignorance and stupidity are human, and arrogance does nothing to further one's cause
@sniperdude12a wrong! Hitler used christianity to try and legitimize his Anti-semitism. this where his belief in the Aryan race came from. so we can blame the holocaust on religion. it would be much more different!! religion was created by man to suppress human curiosity, to try and think outside the box and be innovative, instead you are told how everything was made and that if you question it you will go to hell. If a muslim decides they no long want to be a muslim, the punishment is death.
@juzdamkrazy1 And thus my point is confirmed. I think you have failed to realize that Hitler's role in the First World War was extremely limited, i fear you have mixed up the First World War with the Second. But since you brought up Hitler I seriously doubt that you have read Mein Kampf because if you had you'd realize he used "logic" to justify himself, backed up with militarism, nationalism, and downright xenophobia. Hitler didn't need religion, neither did Stalin, or Mladić
@sniperdude12a "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.
you obviously have not read it either. you are deluded if you think the world would not be a better place without religion, it spreads hate and fear. and do not try and cherry pick the good parts out of the bible.
@juzdamkrazy1 Ok this is getting rediculous so I am going to make my point perfectly clear: people do not need religion to kill each other, as you people realize because you failed to address both Stalin and Mladic, not to mention the Rwandan Hutu Théoneste Bagosora, Wilhelm II, Kim Jong Il, or Li Peng. These people all caused the combined deaths of millions without the help of any god. Atheism and religion both attempt to answer life's great questions. Character is not empirical.
@sniperdude12a Don't try and list off people who were Atheist because I can name a much bigger list of people who were/are religious. they may not need religion to kill eachother, but it sure does help to justify it. I didn't mention those two men because I know they were Atheist but they killed people out of a political ideology. If you look at religious leaders throughout time who have commited atrocities, you will find that religion will be mixed in there somewhere to legitimize their actions
@sniperdude12a and while you say I skipped over Stalin Mladic, you have stopped talking about Hitler all together! as soon as I made a counter-argument about his religious beliefs and how he used them to justify his atrocities (and the fact he started a world war) you gave up on that. if you really want examples of religious killing than here are a few: the Inquisition, Crusades, killing of christians by pagans, killing of pagans by christians, constant suicide bombing, the dark ages.
@juzdamkrazy1 Although Hitler saw himself as chosen by Providence to be the leader he became, it was not a religious justification he employed for all that he did. Hitler believed that the German people were the fulfillment of man's ascendency, that the rest of the world was acting to suppress them out of jealousy and a hatred for their superiority, and that he would lead the German people to their rightful place of global rule. The Jews were only one group he saw as a corruption.
@EternalRecursion He saw Aryans as the rightful rulers. the German people were just used by him so that he had an army. most of the German populace were religious and so Hitler played this to his advantage just like every religious leader who has caused chaos and war. He saw everyone as a corruption, really. unless you were blonde haired, blue eyed he saw you as a second class citizen.
@sniperdude12a you need only look at the middle east at the moment for proof that religion is disgusting and is used for violence. Kim Jung Il was seen as a god though, the people actually thought he was a deity and that when he was born the seasons changed and all the other bullshit that comes with being a god. it doesnt matter if a leader is an Atheist because the people are led to believe that their great leader is god sent.
@sniperdude12a Are you really that stupid and uneducated? As others have said, hitler used religion to justify what he did, then there was the christian dark ages, have you never heard of that time, or do you just choose to ignore it? If it wasn't for the dark ages I wouldn't be surprised if we already had colonies on the moon and mars, we would be capable for travelling outside the solar system, we would of cured things like cancer and aids. Religion is a cancer to humanity.
@oBLACKIECHANoo The "dark ages" were not caused by Christianity. The collapse that brought the dark ages to Europe, and the Holy Roman Church to a position of political power, was caused by a year long winter in the Northern Hemisphere in the year 535, most likely due to a super volcanic eruption generally thought to have been Krakatoa. It was the collapse of the already fragile Roman Empire and its trade and military structures that caused the dark ages.
It's frustrating that the intellectuals and free thinkers of the world are made out to be the ones with the crazy ideas who are needing to prove themselves. You can't argue with a brick wall, so why do we bother arguing with close minded fundamentalists? It's like arguing over whether fairies and dragons exists, it's just pointless - a child's mind will stay set in it's ways.
Poor Dawkings....he gets hounded by idiots like Bill O Reiley then when he declines interviews, he gets called a cowards because he really can't be bothered wasting his time debating someone who barely has one working brain cell.....
I love how he kind of pauses his sentence wondering if he should use the word 'idiot' and then just says Bill o'Reilly (probably spelled that wrong) same thing really
@NetherDrakeye Yes I do. Just because you may think he is not as intelligent on ONE matter, does not mean he is actually unintelligent or uneducated in every subject. That's a fallacy. You also cannot make the assumption, either.
@KeusFrench yea he sounded intelligent when he said no1 knows how the tides come in and out, so god must be doing it. An intelligent person knows that the moons gravitational pull among other factors cause tides. Then said. "sun comes up, sun goes down.. no one knows why" which is ridiculous we only perceive it that way while looking at it from earth, of course it only appears that way because the earth orbits the sun and rotates on its axis, giving the illusion of a sunrise and sunset
@atagg10 Okay so you've still only mentioned 2 areas where he was 'wrong', or just had a flawed picture of it. That still does not mean that he unintelligent as a "whole".
Someone could have absolutely no grasp on mathematics at all and still be intelligent. Vice versa works as well; someone could know math and be unintelligent in other fields, but that does not make them 100% plain stupid.
What I love about this guy is that everything he says comes out in a coherent concise way rather than stumbling and formulating half- arsed ideas like that gimp news reader.
Listen to me carefully, the sun has 4billion years left it will either die out or become super nova. Everything you are, all your accomplishments, all of science, nature, mathematics, philosophy, your religion will be gone and forgotten. No one will ever know you even existed.
I just think it's funny the RD equates 'intelligence' with 'scientist'. the God Delusion dismisses all other disciplines (philosophy, artistry, history, theology, economics, linguistics, journalism in this example) as pointless, effectively. I think, regardless of religious stance, we can all agree that this isn't a good starting point for society.
MrMikeAshelby 18 hours ago
I totally disagree. Ignorant pundits like O'Reilly only gratify and encourage their opponents. For the same reason, I friggin' love Santorum. If I have to argue common sense, I want senseless schmucks like these to oppose me.
Lazymaven 1 day ago
Ok, once you answer the How's, then will you think of the Why's?
JPopour48 3 days ago
Hey, what's the name of the song in the intro and outro?
ZePwner350 4 days ago
@ZePwner350 Probably their own theme.
KamiKibo 2 days ago
PS: Bill O'Reilly's interviews is like a yelling exercise. He asks a question and then when the person responds he interrupts them and talks over them.
MeLlamoBradly 4 days ago
I don't understand the "debate". I support science, I think it's great, it is probably the most valuable tool in this world. Just because it can't explain something doesn't mean I fill it in with "God did it". The point I miss is how science contradicts a deity? That's like saying art can disprove mathematics. They are two completely different studies. How can understanding how the physical world works, ever "disprove" anything spiritual? (and vice versa)
MeLlamoBradly 4 days ago
@MeLlamoBradly Enjoy your god-of-the-gaps. Also, enjoy not understanding autocatalysis, chemical hypercycles and, generally, emergence of complexity in multi-agent systems. You miss the point because you think a "bottom-up" model of the Universe is compatible with a "top-down" model of the universe. Have a great day, sir.
morphemeable 3 days ago
@morphemeable Thanks for explaining how the study of the material world can prove or disprove anything spiritual. You made a lot of sense.
MeLlamoBradly 3 days ago
@morphemeable Also, try re-reading my comment. With your highly superior intellect I would assume you read the part where I said "Just because [science] can't explain something doesn't mean I fill it in with "God did it".
MeLlamoBradly 3 days ago
@MeLlamoBradly
No, but you do fill things science CAN explain with "God did it". Evolution, for one.
TrolltasticLogic 2 days ago
@TrolltasticLogic Do I? I didn't know I did.... thanks for telling me what I believe. I guess it still wouldn't be god-of-the-gaps then would it?
MeLlamoBradly 1 day ago
I agree with Dawkins about not being influenced by rating, on anything really. However, scrap O'Reilly. Let him debate William Lane Craig. We are still waiting. Or maybe a Third formal round with Dr. John Lennox of Oxford....
Apologist4Christ973 5 days ago
If the viewers were more intelligent than the ratings would improve if the interviewers were more intelligent.
ChrisHayesArt 5 days ago
richard dawkins how do u feel about cheese? "Fuck Bill O'Reilly" ... ok
HenryUvas 5 days ago
in short "Bill O'Reilly is a stupid cunt. cheerio"
canadianbeeph 6 days ago
I think this guy is more "Christian"(as it should be) than Bill O'Reilly
SkywalkerG1o 6 days ago
@SkywalkerG1o What are you on about.
TheSolidJake 6 days ago
Someone's been down to the beach for a bit too long
InSingularity 1 week ago
I would marry him.
soulessENERGY 1 week ago
Bill O'Reiley? Oh yes that's right; Bill O'Reiley. Who could forget Bill (sun-goes-up-sun-goes-down) O'Reiley's interview with Professor Dawkins.
MrMarkBartlett 1 week ago
I love this guy
343guiltyspartan 1 week ago
OK. Then why do you go on his show every time you have a new book to sell to the public?
Answer Because making money is more important to you than your convictions. You are an atheist because that is how you make lots of money i.e. selling books and givings lectures. I have also seen past interviews when you thought of the possibility of a Grand Designer. So, stop with your Bullshit. You make money being an atheist. period.
MarcoA1111 1 week ago
@MarcoA1111 There's nothing wrong with getting your work promoted, even if you have to go on a show you dislike. It's not like he kisses Bill's ass, they both go at it in sometimes a very heated debate.
Also, Dawkins still believes in the possibility of a Grand Designer. His problem is with man-made religion.
mattjames2111 1 week ago
@mattjames2111 There is no "belief" in that possibility, it's always there, but he also says it's something like a 0.00000000000000001% chance that there is a god, and by god, obviously he doesn't mean any known god from a retarded religion.
oBLACKIECHANoo 6 days ago
Bill is closed minded. Fox news is, well, stupid to say the least. I can't begin to understand why people don't explore past a simplistic and incorrect version of science which was thought up 2000 years ago. If you just let your preconceptions go you'll see life in the most amazing way instead of being stuck inside a church talking to something that isn't there. Talk to yourself, it's a lot more sane.
sean90211 1 week ago
You know when you play fallout 3 .. and the enclave is is talking shit on the radio i mean they could of just put bill o reilly right there for president .. controlling the ignorant crowd ..
LibertyMaidens 1 week ago 25
@LibertyMaidens Is it me or are games now a days tryin to get people aware of our future, like deus ex has a radio station talking about the NWO throughout the game, it's kind of weird.
SmokeAlexOut 1 day ago
@SmokeAlexOut i haven't played deus ex out yet. but i played it and liked it didn't get to the radio station part but games just put religion and atheïsm into their games like dragon age origins .. you got leliana who believe's in a creator you also have some very cool options to talk more into the subject about believes and facts .. morrigan a witch who is a atheïst and STEN who is more likely to be some kind of muslim or dwarfs who believe in the foundation of their family members in stone..
LibertyMaidens 10 hours ago
@SmokeAlexOut And at some point in the story leliana is questions by some sort of all knowing ghost about the doubt and reason of her believes and she just ignores it in the game .. and you can also question her she can disaprove of your actions and even leave you .. not gonna go in detail here no spoilers but .. and i loved it Dragon age 2 didn't really have that .. started to go the mass effect kind of talking wich really sucks it's just one way or the other ..
LibertyMaidens 10 hours ago
@SmokeAlexOut In Dragon age origins you had a choice you didn't know if the person was gonna dislike the subject .. in mass effect and dragon age 2 it shows you what is good and what is wrong .. and alot of people like this system but where is the moral in that ? if the game already tells you this is good and this is bad ..
I think alot of people like it because then they are certain just like religious people ..
Also known as the Dumbed down games ^^
LibertyMaidens 10 hours ago
can't explain that
gangstapope666 1 week ago
Like a boss
Davethepenquin 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen to me atheists! You will go to HELL. Believe or not, God exists, hell is real. If you don't believe the existence of him, he will send you to hell. You will BURN IN THE LAKE OF THE FIRE ETERNALLY!! No one will help you. Now! Evolution is a GREAT LIE! Science is a liberal conspiracy. Scientists are satanic atheists who wants to destroy our values. No matter what you think. Hell is REAL! Believe before you die, or burn in hell. God will NEVER forgive you!
freandwhickquest 1 week ago
Bill O'Reilly is not stupid, has made a business of stupidly ranting what uninformed people take to be truth. I would say that while he is not as smart as Dawkins or Hitchens he is smart enough to make stupidity profitable.
estuchedepeluche 1 week ago
I know he seems to be obsessed with intelligence, but I can't help agreeing with everything he says.
atheistscepticism 1 week ago
What troubles me is that according to polls americans think O'Reilly is the second most trustworthy Tv host...
masterknaster 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How do people take Dawkins seriously??
He believes in "Aliens", and in a gene called " THE SNEAKY FUCKER GENE"
hahahaha and people still take him seriously, this is beyond a joke, is the world really becoming so dumb!!!!
MrHayeMekka 1 week ago
Anyone know the name of the song/theme that plays during the intro in this video? :) Would love to hear the entire track! :)
Wallebille 1 week ago
all of this name calling is getting very sad. lets stick to finding the facts and not calling each other dumb, please
ScreenMonkeyMan 2 weeks ago
@ScreenMonkeyMan What's wrong with calling someone what they are?
thinkboutit 1 week ago
@thinkboutit In this event I would like Dawkins to be spacific and talk about the issues but as always liberals resort to S.I.N. shift the subject, ignore the facts, and name call. He simply called him names. Anyway, why do you think Bill O'Reilly is dumb?
ScreenMonkeyMan 1 week ago
@ScreenMonkeyMan Why do I think Bill is dumb? Youtube doesn't allow enough space in comments.
thinkboutit 1 week ago
@thinkboutit -.-
ScreenMonkeyMan 6 days ago
@ScreenMonkeyMan It's hard to debate evolution when the word "theory" keeps popping up. Isn't strange how people can only see what they choose to, not even attempting to wipe the thought plate clean to see another view, ultimately finding more truth? Have a good day boss.
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980 I looked at both debates with an open mind. creationism is more factually sound in my view.
ScreenMonkeyMan 6 days ago
@thinkboutit Meaningless slander. It's counterproductive, and it's not truth. Some people take life seriously and tire of the school playground antics of mud slinging. Have a good one.
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 2 weeks ago
Nice argument Rich but ratings earn themselves. Oh, Dawkings only said "intelligent" four times in thirty six seconds.
bulldogbell1980 2 weeks ago
@bulldogbell1980 *Dawkins and ratings don't earn themselves, the way the show is presented earns the ratings. Americans tend to go for more drama filled shows rather than intelligent. For example, Jersey Shore over anything on the History Channel.
MaRTiiaNN 1 week ago
@MaRTiiaNN I'm guessing that there aren't many Americans that watch Jersey Shore and then can't wait to go hear what O'Reilly has to say. History Channel and then O'Reilly seems a bit more probable, but that's speaking more from my lifestyle, and my family's, and my friends. Have a good day.
bulldogbell1980 1 week ago
@bulldogbell1980 It was an example.. Peace.
MaRTiiaNN 1 week ago
oh snap!
LordSolarAwesome 2 weeks ago 55
@IWEEW He gives you facts instead of fairytales and I'll tell you to your face, anyone who believes fairytale over fact are both stupid and wrong. Your butthurt circular argument won't win this one.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@ponchred Really? He loathes religion and displays a shockingly insensitive amount of intellectual arrogance. People were arrogant of the belief that Earth was the center of the universe, just as they were of the planet being flat, and just as they are now of Darwinian evolution and global warming. Do you see a trend emerging? I'm skeptical of any scientific arrogance and reject the suggestion that someone is unintelligent for choosing to believe in a God.
IWEEW 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW But plenty of people loathe religion. I share the sentiment. It's not a good thing. I can't wait until it's a museum exhibit filed under 'silly things we used to believe' just like Zeus and dancing around bonfires. You percieve intelligent argument as intellectual arrogance but it's not. It's fact. You mistakenly lump Dawkins comments in with ridiculous old world concepts such as a 'flat earth'. Believing in a religion is exactly that. Believing that a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds (cont)
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW (cont) Believing a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds knew anything that we do not about the universe is akin to 'believing the world is flat'. There is no fact in believing there's a God. Most God concepts are illogical. The most logical one was the Ancient Greek concept of Zeus and if you said you believed in him in this day and age you'd be laughed out of the room. Evolution is supported by fact. Fact that when presented to one such as yourself you just put your fingers in your ears (cont)
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW (cont) You just put your fingers in your ears and make the 'la la la' noise. We have irrefutable evidence for evolution now, but because you don't understand it, you don't believe it because mentally you're so connected to believing that is was magically zapped into place by a divine being, one who there is no proof for. Dawkins is very correct when he points out that if you were born in India, you'd believe in Vishnu, if you were born in Iran you'd believe in Allah. Oh, but this (cont)
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW (cont) This is all nonsense to you because for some reason that you cannot dictate (only feel in your imagination) is that Jesus exists and God is good even though there's no evidence for either, as there isn't any for Vishnu or Allah or any made up God concept. Just old books written by men who thought they knew what this cosmic boogeyman wanted. So it's not 'scientific arrogance', you're intimidated by superior intellect and because it attacks your silly belief it intimidates you.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW In fact, it's people like you who don't use their intellect and openly encourage others not to use their intellect and THIS is one of the main reasons why religion is a toxin in our society. Believe there's a God if you will, but don't tell people you know there's one, or that you know what it wants or desires. You couldn't possibly know. Science doesn't give answers but nor does religion and religion will tell you it has said answers when they are made up with 0% proof.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@ponchred You have a difficult time understanding why someone chooses to have faith, and why it's even called "faith" and not "logical belief." I get it---you think it's bad to believe anything without evidence. You hate the concept of being told what to do by a church, because the suggestion that homosexuality and abortion are bad things upsets you greatly. I have a faith because it gives me hope and comfort. Stop attacking me and arrogantly crowning yourself more intelligent.
IWEEW 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW No, I don't. YOU have a problem listening to reason. I don't think it's bad to believe something without evidence. I believe it's bad to tell people that you know the mysteries of life with certainty and pass that certainty on to other people. I think it's immoral to take those people who buy said certainty and make money off them, to gain 'praise and worship'. So you don't 'get it'. And no, I don't think you're intelligent enough to 'get it', but it has nothing to do with crowning (cont)
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@ponchred
You don't believe it's bad to believe something without evidence?
I believe you're a dumbass. I haven't read anything you've said. Please tell me why I shouldn't think that.
Oleander410 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Oleander410 You're the one replying to one line and admittedly not reading anything else, like the context you moron. No, I don't think it's 'bad' to believe something without evidence. It doesn't make you a 'bad' person, misguided yes, but 'bad' - no. Next time, learn to read fuckwit.
ponchred 1 week ago
@IWEEW (Cont) It has nothing to do with me 'crowning' myself anything, it purely has to do with your shitty attitude towards plain and simple evidence. When you mock a simple yet proven theory like evolution purely because it flies in the face of your belief (which is 3000 years old and created by sheperds) it paints you to be a gigantic retard. Look ar the research of the island lizards, one of the greatest proofs of evolution. You can't fault it, unless you're ignorant. (cont)
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW (Cont) There is NO OTHER way you can put it. If you're being stupid, and someone points that out, it's not a crime against humanity. It's actually someone caring and attempting to do you a service. But that's wrong and horrible to you because you don't get to have your cake. I'm sick to death of people such as yourself who just want to childishly hold on to a security blanket with no reason to do so. And this isn't to 'attack' you, it's to help you see reason. I'm sorry if you're unable.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW For the record, I love how you religious types instantly accuse people like me of 'not understanding faith'. It's laughable. It's like you want to say 'see, I'm smart too' even though it just makes you look like more of a dunce. You are currently participating in a losing argument. I'd stop right now if I were you.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@ponchred You're actually the one who is much more emotional and continues to level personal attacks against his opponent. I'm totally calm and really couldn't care less about your opinions, because they mean absolutely nothing to me. I think it's hilarious that you're in the middle of a hissy fit only because I challenged your boyfriend, Dawkins. If the research of island lizards means something to you, that's great. It gives you absolutely no right to be arrogant.
IWEEW 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW So you're better than me because you're calm and I'm succinctly expressing myself with more than one post? Oh I see. Astounding logic. More posts = more emotion, that's just a certainty. Ah, and now I'm in a homosexual relationship with Richard Dawkins? That's mature of you. What gave it away? The island lizard research doesn't give you a right to be ignorant. Which you totally are. Instead you could take note, and admit that evolution has legs. But you won't. Because you're a moron.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW Furthermore, why do our current temperaments even matter? I'm not angry, I'm laughing at your ignorance here! See how easy it is to pontificate over a piece of irrelevant data? Why does that matter in the debate? Why not instead say something tangible to back yourself up rather than to play on personal emotion? LOL.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW Dawkins calls O'Reilly an idiot because he is, not because of his beliefs.
Belief that the Earth was at the centre of the universe/flat came about without the modern scientific method. Evolution and global warming are however the result of the scientific method. No this is not a trend. The random guesses of bronze age peoples are not the same as the vast amounts of research and study of modern science.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@IWEEW There is no "we thought this, then found out we were wrong, then thought this and found out that was wrong too, so why should we think what we know now is true" trend. Scientific advancements NEVER show we were totally wrong in the past, they only make us more right. A theory will only be improved, not over turned. This is not arrogance. Example: Newton mechanics and the theory of relativity.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 As a historian, I can tell you that this statement is wrong. For example, Alchemy was considered a valid science once upon a time. There was also once a time in which we thought that rain created frogs and that maggots spawned on rotten meat. We came to those two conclusions by a scientific method. We saw the meat, then later we saw maggots on it. Thusly, people assumed based on the evidence they had.
That is what science is. Assuming based on the evidence you have, then adjusting
Arborem 1 week ago
@Arborem Alchemy was considered a valid science BEFORE the modern scientific method. Science is not "assuming based on the evidence, then adjusting." Maybe it was when people believed in spontaneous generation. The modern scientific method is this: Create a hypothesis based on evidence. Collect more evidence. Try to disprove your hypothesis. Have anonymous peers review your evidence. Publish it. Have other scientists try do disprove your hypothesis/do the same experiments to get the same results
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Arborem So I should have been more specific. Obviously there are things we thought were true in the past, and now know are completely wrong. What you missed out on is since the birth of modern science, we don't do this.
So as a science undergrad, I can tell you your historical facts may be right, but your understanding of science is wrong.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Arborem oh yeah just to illustrate. Alchemists did not publish their findings, they were not subsequently tested by alchemists, nor were they peer-reviewed before hand. Also I don't think there was actually a hypothesis or theory behind alchemy, it was just attempting to turn lead into gold. So really there was nothing factually wrong about a series of futile experiments. As for the spontaneous generation thing, that was not tested properly, the results were not reviewed and published etc.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 To start this reply, I would like to say it is difficult to take seriously an argument started with the words "oh yeah." Alchemists did release their findings. The German alchemist who was an inspiration for the character of Dr. Frankenstein was credited with finding an elixir that increased vitality. There was also scientific method and formula behind alchemy. It is only when you start reading about the Philosopher's Stone that these concepts are thrown out.
Arborem 1 week ago
@Arborem Right, but a lot of alchemists kept their work secret because they didn't wanted to be first successful alchemist. So, I probably should have mentioned that some alchemists did make over discoveries that were published, this was the birth of chemistry. On reflection that wasn't a great argument so I'm willing to retract that.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Arborem In any case, alchemy was not performed under the modern scientific method and by today's standards would never be considered science. The results of alchemists who were willing to share their findings were not put under adequate scrutiny as they would be today. There may well have been a "scientific method" and it may well have been considered science, (although the word science wasn't actually used until the 19th century) but does not conform to the modern scientific method.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 Alright, after doing a little bit of research (probably not enough), I found that you are right. There is no example of theories in Modern Science (being defined by the use of the modern scientific method) being 100% disproven. However, the last point that I can debate is the notion of alchemists keeping their work secret. Yes, many did, and so do modern scientists. I have read of examples up to the late 1900's of scientists stealing each other's work. Many must practice secrecy.
Arborem 1 week ago
@Arborem Oh yes certainly scientists keep there work secret, but they do publish eventually. I was under the impression that many alchemists took their secrets to the grave. Then again if they did that I don't see how we would know about them... Maybe I'm wrong on that bit, you're the historian.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 While this may not be the formal scientific method that you want to see, it was still a legitimate science that followed sets of rules and logic. Modern Science in being less bold gives me less examples of things being completely disproven. However, I am confident that with research I can find cases of theories being completely disproven, as religious ideals are more or less disproven.
Arborem 1 week ago
@Arborem Yes of course, I accept that. What I am saying is, with the modern scientific method, there are no examples of actual theories being completely over turned. I am confident you won't find any. They have to actually be theories, not just hypotheses.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
insults? this is Dawkins Refuge after O'Reilly made him look silly, oh yes very intelligent Richard.
indianslummer 2 weeks ago
@indianslummer Have you seen his so called "interview" in the O'Reilly Factor?
Bill didn't let Dawkins speak for more than a minute...
O'Reilly's arguments were stupid and ignorant to say the least..
Stevoukos 2 weeks ago 79
@Stevoukos yeah o reilly sounded like a kid arguing with another kid on the playground... "because i don't believe a meteor came and 'made everything happen", etc...
officialvangcreative 2 weeks ago
@Stevoukos That's how Bill O'Reilly treats all his guests who are not right wing conservative religious people... I have no idea how someone so dumb can have a show on TV
marianopicco 1 week ago
@indianslummer O'Reilly makes the rest of fox news look like liberal Atheists man, the dude is a disgusting cunt of a man and loves to spread misinformation!
Kornmang 2 weeks ago
Not sure but I think Richard Dawkins doesn't like Bill O'Reilly.
ultrage4 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ponchred 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imshippyupup People often find superior intellect intimidating so I can see how you'd feel that way. He doesn't say anything mean, only facts which are percieved as being mean. But he's a very nice chap. He wanted to start a group called 'Atheists for Jesus for crying out loud!
ponchred 2 weeks ago
Hahaha! :) Wicked!
dudokozle 2 weeks ago
He did a talk at my school a few years ago, and I'm sorry but to hear the way he speaks about any belief other than his own, I can see how terribly clouded his vison is.
He can't accept any other theory than the one he believes in.
He then preceded to call the Religeous Moral Philisophical studies teacher stupid for believing any other theory for the Earths creation.
ACrissCrossFILMS 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ACrissCrossFILMS That's a hard opinion to agree with as he only delivers facts. Religious nutters are the ones that spew opinions. What kind of a school subject is Religious Moral Philosophical Studies? Could any school offer a more useless subject?
ponchred 2 weeks ago
What has a believer in common with an unbeliever- NOTHING.
zerubabel3 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible was Created and Written by Jews to Control the Masses with "FEAR!" and still do; and Now; the same Hidden (from public scrutiny) Parasites have now taken Control of the masses by Owning the World's Mass-Media with the same basic principles of mass Propaganda; Lies and Fear and who will publicly intimidate and ridicule anyone who tries to questions it, or them! It's time to Wake-UP World before "They" finally make Their "British Empire" Sorry; "New World (ENSLAVING) Order" a REALITY!
einrib4truth 2 weeks ago
Bill O'Vibrate me of the sit on it and spin zone at the COX network of frum scum
DoinDabzByTheSlabs 2 weeks ago
Richard you are a legend and poor Bill is... i dont know what Bill is.. can someone tell me what Bill actually is ???
flyscreen99 2 weeks ago
i agree. but dawkins is afraid to debate craig - he should lose his air of superiority (not saying bill's not an idiot)
koss121 2 weeks ago
@koss121 why is he afraid to debate craig? I assume you mean william lane craig?
dav3yboy79 2 weeks ago
@dav3yboy79 Indeed. Because Craig is an actual philosopher and Dawkins isn't. He's just a borderline logical positivist.
koss121 2 weeks ago
@koss121
lol, Craig LOVES to run around bragging that he's a "professional philosopher." Know what? None of the real professional philosophers out there...the bioethicists, the scholars, the social studies professors...none of them have ever described themselves as a "professional philosopher." Craig just says that because he's an egomaniac.
SirKickz 2 weeks ago
@SirKickz He has said that - but not essentially since he is egotistical. I am pretty darn sure you rushed into that conclusion. He is a professional, he has only said that because he is under constant attack from the internet community (which is not philosophically bright at all)... I hope we aren't starting to live in a world when being a professional is considered being egotistical - based on very little substance.
koss121 2 weeks ago
@koss121
The only thing he's professional at is extending basic human intuition into realms where basic human intuition has been shown to fail. The Kalam Cosmological Argument that he waves around like an oversized dong has been refuted by so many people it isn't even funny, hell, I can refute it, and I'm just some random dude. He's a professional at straw man arguments and refusing to address the actual points his opponents make, simply dismissing them arrogantly as irrelevant.
SirKickz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirKickz Who cares what a philosopher has to say? It's a nonsensical profession. I'd rather listen to an educated individual than some bloke overflowing with circular bullshit opinions on everything. Philosophers may have been valid in the stone ages, but here in the 21st century they're a waste of time.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
@koss121 and an evolutionary biologist. I don't think he's afraid of debating Craig, just that the debates have become mundane and repetative between Atheists and Creationists/Theists
dav3yboy79 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@koss121 Dawkins is not 'afraid' to debate Craig. What a childish thought. Did you ever think he's just sick of having to refute utter nonsense? Dawkins has succinctly expressed his points (repeatedly) and there's nothing left to say.
ponchred 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@koss121 And for the record, he's debated so many of these dummies, why would a debate with WLC be any different?
ponchred 2 weeks ago
Dawkins is always depressed. He sounds like that guy that did the intro of "Tales From the Darkside".
geraldreagan 3 weeks ago
A world where Dawkins made the rules. Indeed.
24thetorch 3 weeks ago
What we need (what the american people need) is a change in society so that people like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck don't get good ratings. It seems to me that anyone who are satisfied with listening to these people lack the basic ability to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is not. I think the problem is the american education system, there should be more focus on educating everyone.
Fuglebolle 3 weeks ago
Why has Richard, smart as he is, wasted some of his finite time on earth participating in at least THREE "ineffective" discussions on O'Reilly's show? Would he admitt that either he played a part in worsening public discussions (per the second question) or that he wasn't smart enough to size up Bill O'Reilly after the first and second encounters? By the way, this video was posted last June and Dawkins was on O'Reilly again in October. Fucking hypocrite.
mjr8550 3 weeks ago
@mjr8550 That's hardly being a hypocrite - he'd LIKE there to be more intelligent hosts but I suppose he'll take what he can get. I wouldn't say they were entirely ineffective, maybe there was next to no exchange of views or new ground broken due to O'Reilly's donkey-like demenaor, but it's better than not appearing at all.
I think there's a vid somewhere, or a question in a Q&A, where someone asks why he bothers but I can't remember the answer, it may have been due to his publicist.
SAMagic 3 weeks ago
@Sniperdude12a msnbc.com just put a article up about 200 priests being accused of sexually abusing children. apparently one of the priests told the child he was raping that "this is what gods love feels like".
and you still think religion doesn't make the world a better place.
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
He did actually sort of lose against Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly debates are always interesting, because you never know if the object will cope with his bias
TTV5 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a That's just wrong. If indeed you have read Mein Kampf, you will find it is rife with symbolism and religious justification. If Hitler wasn't stopped he would have been another Kim Jong Il.Your argument is weak.
ponchred 3 weeks ago
Bill O'Reiley is just a massive twat and Prof Dawkins would own in him in any debate, period.
MrDarksidematter 3 weeks ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 3 weeks ago
lol its in the advantage of Dawkins if he wants to win a debate to debate a less intelligent person. I mean everyone with an iq above 90 could easily see that this man is wrong, anyone with an iq above 110 could refute most of his work, anyone with an iq above 130 with destroy this guy, and anyone with an iq above 150, he's to scared of to debate. i'm just saying, after John Lennox..... either way, it's interesting to watch debates of dawkins in order to sharpen the brain.
Rekenbij 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
JesusChristusSoter 4 weeks ago
I often wonder why people hate so much on Richard Dawkins. He seems like such a nice, kind, learned man who only says the things he does out of concern for the development of humanity. The way O'Reilly treated him was truly shameful. Crass and nonsensical.
ponchred 4 weeks ago 39
@ponchred Well when people criticize other people's faith, they will get offended no matter how well mannered they are.
Balstar5283 4 weeks ago
@ponchred I'm an atheist who finds Dawkins' incensed incredulity at religious belief to be condescending at best. By watching him you get to see an anomalous type of asshole, the soft-spoken one.
imshippyupup 2 weeks ago
@imshippyupup Then again, I think being an atheist has nothing to do with being a nice guy. Richard Dawkins could be the worst man breathing, but the idea is to hear what he says, not to like him. At least this is how I think.
ultrage4 2 weeks ago
@ponchred I'm not defending O'Reilly, but people like Dawkins scare the absolute shit out of me. He's a person who hates religion with every fiber of his being and uses his credentials to essentially say that anyone who doesn't agree with him is stupid and wrong. He's the same kind of people who thought questioning the planet being flat was outrageous. History will probably credit people like Dawkins more with scientific repression than any religious person.
IWEEW 2 weeks ago
@IWEEW
Find me an example of Dawkins refuting a fact. evidence, evidence, evidence.
Kornmang 2 weeks ago
I can't believe how arrogant this guy is sometimes.
sniperdude12a 1 month ago
@sniperdude12a
Well, a man can only take seeing so much stupidity before he turns into an arrogant, grumpy snob. I'm well on my way myself.
iLoveSalami 4 weeks ago 15
@sniperdude12a are you trolling? bill O'Reilly actually thinks it is fascism if you don't teach religion in a science class. he doesn't even know how the tides work!
juzdamkrazy1 4 weeks ago
@juzdamkrazy1 are you trolling? First of all, Bill O'Reilly doesn't think that the moon got there without God's help, and second of all I question how intelligent Dawkins actually is since he avoids explaining the science of tidal forces to O'Reilly, and how the Earth rotates. Also, I think Bill was correct when he said that it takes as much faith to be an atheist, and Dawkins simply passed the onus back to Bill instead of an actual rebuttle, a few times.
sniperdude12a 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a he didn't tell him about those things because it is a waste of Dawkins time. why educate someone who doesnt know science of that simplicity. if you don't actually think Dawkins is intelligent than you are the troll here, not me. i know O'reilly doesnt think the moon got there without gods help you fool, he is a idiot and just goes to show how stupid christians can be. watch any video of Dawkins and you will understand why he is great. and besides
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@juzdamkrazy1 and besides, if Dawkins did try to rebuttle, than O'reilly would have just shouted over him like he does in all of his videos. if O'reilly doesnt agree with someone than he wont let them get their point across.
OH MY GOD!! it takes no faith at all to be an atheist!! you are an idiot and obviously believe in god. the only proof christians have is the bible, and everything they know comes from it. Science has substantial evidence for whatever scientists claim. Religion makes me sick
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@juzdamkrazy1 this conversation is over by the way. anyone who defends O'reilly is obviously intellectually.
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@juzdamkrazy1 I can't help but be amused that your replies show 10 times the arrogance I mentioned in this video. To think that you clearly believe that the world would be any different without Christianity is truly foolish - take the First World War it's bases were in nationalism and militarism, not religion, and it caused far worse suffering than any war caused by religion to date. My point is ignorance and stupidity are human, and arrogance does nothing to further one's cause
sniperdude12a 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a wrong! Hitler used christianity to try and legitimize his Anti-semitism. this where his belief in the Aryan race came from. so we can blame the holocaust on religion. it would be much more different!! religion was created by man to suppress human curiosity, to try and think outside the box and be innovative, instead you are told how everything was made and that if you question it you will go to hell. If a muslim decides they no long want to be a muslim, the punishment is death.
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@juzdamkrazy1 And thus my point is confirmed. I think you have failed to realize that Hitler's role in the First World War was extremely limited, i fear you have mixed up the First World War with the Second. But since you brought up Hitler I seriously doubt that you have read Mein Kampf because if you had you'd realize he used "logic" to justify himself, backed up with militarism, nationalism, and downright xenophobia. Hitler didn't need religion, neither did Stalin, or Mladić
sniperdude12a 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a "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.
you obviously have not read it either. you are deluded if you think the world would not be a better place without religion, it spreads hate and fear. and do not try and cherry pick the good parts out of the bible.
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@juzdamkrazy1 Ok this is getting rediculous so I am going to make my point perfectly clear: people do not need religion to kill each other, as you people realize because you failed to address both Stalin and Mladic, not to mention the Rwandan Hutu Théoneste Bagosora, Wilhelm II, Kim Jong Il, or Li Peng. These people all caused the combined deaths of millions without the help of any god. Atheism and religion both attempt to answer life's great questions. Character is not empirical.
sniperdude12a 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a Don't try and list off people who were Atheist because I can name a much bigger list of people who were/are religious. they may not need religion to kill eachother, but it sure does help to justify it. I didn't mention those two men because I know they were Atheist but they killed people out of a political ideology. If you look at religious leaders throughout time who have commited atrocities, you will find that religion will be mixed in there somewhere to legitimize their actions
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a and while you say I skipped over Stalin Mladic, you have stopped talking about Hitler all together! as soon as I made a counter-argument about his religious beliefs and how he used them to justify his atrocities (and the fact he started a world war) you gave up on that. if you really want examples of religious killing than here are a few: the Inquisition, Crusades, killing of christians by pagans, killing of pagans by christians, constant suicide bombing, the dark ages.
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@juzdamkrazy1 Although Hitler saw himself as chosen by Providence to be the leader he became, it was not a religious justification he employed for all that he did. Hitler believed that the German people were the fulfillment of man's ascendency, that the rest of the world was acting to suppress them out of jealousy and a hatred for their superiority, and that he would lead the German people to their rightful place of global rule. The Jews were only one group he saw as a corruption.
EternalRecursion 3 weeks ago
@EternalRecursion He saw Aryans as the rightful rulers. the German people were just used by him so that he had an army. most of the German populace were religious and so Hitler played this to his advantage just like every religious leader who has caused chaos and war. He saw everyone as a corruption, really. unless you were blonde haired, blue eyed he saw you as a second class citizen.
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a you need only look at the middle east at the moment for proof that religion is disgusting and is used for violence. Kim Jung Il was seen as a god though, the people actually thought he was a deity and that when he was born the seasons changed and all the other bullshit that comes with being a god. it doesnt matter if a leader is an Atheist because the people are led to believe that their great leader is god sent.
juzdamkrazy1 3 weeks ago
@sniperdude12a Are you really that stupid and uneducated? As others have said, hitler used religion to justify what he did, then there was the christian dark ages, have you never heard of that time, or do you just choose to ignore it? If it wasn't for the dark ages I wouldn't be surprised if we already had colonies on the moon and mars, we would be capable for travelling outside the solar system, we would of cured things like cancer and aids. Religion is a cancer to humanity.
oBLACKIECHANoo 3 weeks ago
@oBLACKIECHANoo The "dark ages" were not caused by Christianity. The collapse that brought the dark ages to Europe, and the Holy Roman Church to a position of political power, was caused by a year long winter in the Northern Hemisphere in the year 535, most likely due to a super volcanic eruption generally thought to have been Krakatoa. It was the collapse of the already fragile Roman Empire and its trade and military structures that caused the dark ages.
EternalRecursion 3 weeks ago
To be an idiot you require an IQ below 20.
As such it unfair to call O'Reilly an idiot - he is merely a moron.
arthur1411 1 month ago
I would pay money to stop Bill O'reilly producing that shit.
AnkhMorpork1 1 month ago 5
It's frustrating that the intellectuals and free thinkers of the world are made out to be the ones with the crazy ideas who are needing to prove themselves. You can't argue with a brick wall, so why do we bother arguing with close minded fundamentalists? It's like arguing over whether fairies and dragons exists, it's just pointless - a child's mind will stay set in it's ways.
KidsWithGuns1992 1 month ago 3
I don't hate him. But he didn't say this to bills face on the show 0_0
youpee43 1 month ago
@youpee43 i think he was trying to be civil so he didn't.
moomoochacoo 1 month ago
@youpee43 maybe because he didn't let him talk? he doesnt let anyone talk
aNxello 4 weeks ago
Poor Dawkings....he gets hounded by idiots like Bill O Reiley then when he declines interviews, he gets called a cowards because he really can't be bothered wasting his time debating someone who barely has one working brain cell.....
3sim159 1 month ago
This guy needs to come out of the closet already.
Jblod240 1 month ago
I love how he kind of pauses his sentence wondering if he should use the word 'idiot' and then just says Bill o'Reilly (probably spelled that wrong) same thing really
theciircusfreak 1 month ago 98
@theciircusfreak Except Bill O'Reilly is intelligent as well as educated...
KeusFrench 4 weeks ago
@KeusFrench wow seriously? do you really think that?
NetherDrakeye 3 weeks ago
@NetherDrakeye Yes I do. Just because you may think he is not as intelligent on ONE matter, does not mean he is actually unintelligent or uneducated in every subject. That's a fallacy. You also cannot make the assumption, either.
KeusFrench 3 weeks ago
@KeusFrench yea he sounded intelligent when he said no1 knows how the tides come in and out, so god must be doing it. An intelligent person knows that the moons gravitational pull among other factors cause tides. Then said. "sun comes up, sun goes down.. no one knows why" which is ridiculous we only perceive it that way while looking at it from earth, of course it only appears that way because the earth orbits the sun and rotates on its axis, giving the illusion of a sunrise and sunset
atagg10 3 weeks ago
@atagg10 Okay so you've still only mentioned 2 areas where he was 'wrong', or just had a flawed picture of it. That still does not mean that he unintelligent as a "whole".
Someone could have absolutely no grasp on mathematics at all and still be intelligent. Vice versa works as well; someone could know math and be unintelligent in other fields, but that does not make them 100% plain stupid.
KeusFrench 3 weeks ago
What I love about this guy is that everything he says comes out in a coherent concise way rather than stumbling and formulating half- arsed ideas like that gimp news reader.
eithnejack 1 month ago
Listen to me carefully, the sun has 4billion years left it will either die out or become super nova. Everything you are, all your accomplishments, all of science, nature, mathematics, philosophy, your religion will be gone and forgotten. No one will ever know you even existed.
AmritSinghAuja 1 month ago
dawkins you are the man, wish i couldve been born