Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bill O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins

TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2009 7:02:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ah, yes...Bill O'Reilly. This idiot does what he does best - hell, in this interview he's done the same or possibly more talking than the interviewee.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 12:09:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/10/2009 6:39:51 PM, Nags wrote:

I think Dawkins won, but he could've done a lot better.

I wanted to say that it's impossible to loose against Bill O'Reilly as he is a complete moron. Although in this point he is surprisingly unmoronic. He still is *wrong*, and rude, but less than normally. His immense stupidity made me expect he was a full-on creationist and believed the world was 4000 years old. Thatäs how wrong he *usually* is.

It's also impossible to win to win against O'Reilly, as he basically is a troll with moderator powers on a TV-channel. I give 200 million plus points to Richard Dawkins to call him out "listen to me and stop screaming".

But of course, Dawkins should have repeated when O'Reilly said science doesn't give answers, that "Neither does Christianity". The answer "God said 'let there be light'" does not answer any more than "The universe began with a singularity".
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 12:12:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/10/2009 7:29:30 PM, Puck wrote:
O'Reilley's argument for theism is no one is omniscient. Fail.

Well... no, I wouldn't interpret it like that. His argument is "Science can't tell me what I want to know. Therefore I choose to believe in a religion who also doesn't tell me what I want to know."

Still fail, though.
So prove me wrong, then.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 3:04:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
So, Bill, who should we decide which theory of creationism is right with, say, oh, thousands of religions with a different view point?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 4:40:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 3:04:59 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
So, Bill, who should we decide which theory of creationism is right with, say, oh, thousands of religions with a different view point?

I think his point is that the answer to the questions is "God". It's the so called "God of the holes" argument, that God is needed to answer the questions science can't.
So prove me wrong, then.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 8:14:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't think Dawkins handled the questions the right way. That's the problem with atheists, they don't budge.

O'Reilly has stated that he believes in evolution and whatnot, but still harmonizes it with God in that he believes God used evolution as a mechanism. This is a fair belief, I think.

His reasons are as follows:

1. Jesus provides a moral compass, Science does not
2. Following Jesus' ideal would lead to peace on Earth
3. Jesus has done things that resonate to today

My answers would be as follows:
1. Then take his moral compass, but leave Religion out of it.
2. So would following the ideals of any Philosopher, really.
3. Each individual contribution to science resonates to today, and in a more powerful and widespread fashion.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 9:06:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 4:40:58 AM, regebro wrote:
At 10/11/2009 3:04:59 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
So, Bill, who should we decide which theory of creationism is right with, say, oh, thousands of religions with a different view point?

I think his point is that the answer to the questions is "God". It's the so called "God of the holes" argument, that God is needed to answer the questions science can't.

And then they look stupid when Science figures them out.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 9:18:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
No they don't, because there will always be holes XD
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 9:39:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 9:37:06 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/10/2009 6:39:51 PM, Nags wrote:

I think Dawkins won, but he could've done a lot better.

na

it was a tie...

Richard Dawkins allowed to tie...
if anything he hurt his cause, he was not ready for bill, bill intimidated him and made him look like he was holding the wrong position...

tie, if not bill won.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 1:55:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 1:26:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
ahwwww, "stop shouting at me"

and thats where he lost.

Yup. I'ts impossible to win against a moronic troll that doesn't listen. Like O'Reilly. If you call him out on the trolling, all the morons will side with Bill. If you don't, you can't get your point through. You are fcuked.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 1:56:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 8:14:56 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I don't think Dawkins handled the questions the right way. That's the problem with atheists, they don't budge.

O'Reilly has stated that he believes in evolution and whatnot, but still harmonizes it with God in that he believes God used evolution as a mechanism. This is a fair belief, I think.

His reasons are as follows:

1. Jesus provides a moral compass, Science does not
2. Following Jesus' ideal would lead to peace on Earth
3. Jesus has done things that resonate to today

My answers would be as follows:
1. Then take his moral compass, but leave Religion out of it.
2. So would following the ideals of any Philosopher, really.
3. Each individual contribution to science resonates to today, and in a more powerful and widespread fashion.

Agreed, that would have been better arguments. Dawkins isn't very good at convincing. Which is of course why O'Reilly picked him. ;)
So prove me wrong, then.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 2:44:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 1:55:34 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/11/2009 1:26:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
ahwwww, "stop shouting at me"

and thats where he lost.

Yup. I'ts impossible to win against a moronic troll that doesn't listen. Like O'Reilly. If you call him out on the trolling, all the morons will side with Bill. If you don't, you can't get your point through. You are fcuked.

He really does not listen to anyone on his show... he plays the mocho role...

this is great

he will not listen
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 3:27:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Dr. Dawkins insists on using science to debunk God. This is my biggest problem with him. Science does not, does not, and does not deal with supernatural deities. He is not helping science by doing interviews with Billy O. I don't give one wit about either person's God. I care about solid science education in a country where a horrible percentage of citizens believes the world was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago. Stupid, yes I said stupid. I recommend scientists avoid FOX news, including you, Dr. Dawkins.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 4:10:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Trolling the Troll XD
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 5:06:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 8:14:56 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I don't think Dawkins handled the questions the right way. That's the problem with atheists, they don't budge.

O'Reilly has stated that he believes in evolution and whatnot, but still harmonizes it with God in that he believes God used evolution as a mechanism. This is a fair belief, I think.

His reasons are as follows:

1. Jesus provides a moral compass, Science does not
2. Following Jesus' ideal would lead to peace on Earth
3. Jesus has done things that resonate to today

My answers would be as follows:
1. Then take his moral compass, but leave Religion out of it.
2. So would following the ideals of any Philosopher, really.
3. Each individual contribution to science resonates to today, and in a more powerful and widespread fashion.

All Dawkins should've said was:

1. This book is about evolution, not the existence of God or the compatibility of evolution and God.

2. If you believe in theistic evolution - sure. But take that to a philosophy classroom, not a science classroom.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 10:58:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's the one thing that annoyed me about his latest book, the continual dig at the concept of ID in the latter half. Yeah it's a rubbish hypothesis, it's just out of place and appears petty.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2009 11:51:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 3:27:03 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Dr. Dawkins insists on using science to debunk God. This is my biggest problem with him.

He does nothing of the sort. Nonsense.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 9:58:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 11:51:15 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/11/2009 3:27:03 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Dr. Dawkins insists on using science to debunk God. This is my biggest problem with him.

He does nothing of the sort. Nonsense.

Regebro, I may agree with you on that point, but why don't you try explaining instead of just stating something and being done with it?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 10:01:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 9:58:19 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/11/2009 11:51:15 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/11/2009 3:27:03 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Dr. Dawkins insists on using science to debunk God. This is my biggest problem with him.

He does nothing of the sort. Nonsense.

Regebro, I may agree with you on that point, but why don't you try explaining instead of just stating something and being done with it?

Regebro fancies himself smarter than everyone else and doesn't need to explain himself. For example, the last time I debated with him on the forums - his replies usually consisted of "I'm not going to both teaching you basic economics" or "Since you're a libertarian, I thought you'd know better" and posted nothing replying to my actual post. Regebro is conceited and needs to stop acting as though he is a supreme being who knows more than everyone else.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 10:18:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 5:06:32 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 10/11/2009 8:14:56 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I don't think Dawkins handled the questions the right way. That's the problem with atheists, they don't budge.

O'Reilly has stated that he believes in evolution and whatnot, but still harmonizes it with God in that he believes God used evolution as a mechanism. This is a fair belief, I think.

His reasons are as follows:

1. Jesus provides a moral compass, Science does not
2. Following Jesus' ideal would lead to peace on Earth
3. Jesus has done things that resonate to today

My answers would be as follows:
1. Then take his moral compass, but leave Religion out of it.
2. So would following the ideals of any Philosopher, really.
3. Each individual contribution to science resonates to today, and in a more powerful and widespread fashion.

All Dawkins should've said was:

1. This book is about evolution, not the existence of God or the compatibility of evolution and God.

2. If you believe in theistic evolution - sure. But take that to a philosophy classroom, not a science classroom.

O'Reilly was sneaky though. He said that he would talk about the book AFTER he spoke about whatever he wanted to.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 11:02:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/11/2009 11:51:15 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/11/2009 3:27:03 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Dr. Dawkins insists on using science to debunk God. This is my biggest problem with him.

He does nothing of the sort. Nonsense.

Hardly, I recommend you read the God Delusion and listen to his lectures. Dr. Dawkins is a great scientist, but is more concerned with Atheism than science.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 2:06:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 9:58:19 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/11/2009 11:51:15 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/11/2009 3:27:03 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Dr. Dawkins insists on using science to debunk God. This is my biggest problem with him.

He does nothing of the sort. Nonsense.

Regebro, I may agree with you on that point, but why don't you try explaining instead of just stating something and being done with it?

Explaining what? If somebody says "There is a UFO in your room", and there isn't, who is it that should do the explaining? You other the one who claims it?
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 2:07:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 10:01:30 AM, Nags wrote:
Regebro fancies himself smarter than everyone else and doesn't need to explain himself.

Read Karl Poppers "The logic of scientific discovery", and then shut up.
So prove me wrong, then.