FOX NEWS: Richard Dawkins vs Bill O'Rielly [OCT 11, 2009] 5:20

[MrObama]

Run time: 05:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFI_UztAPN0   Posted on YouTube: October 12, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 14, 2009 By DU Member: MrObama Views on DU: 1669

 
TYT: Bill O'Reilly Debates Against Science - and WINS!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x388163
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPF57wymxg

[zonkers]

1. I like the part when Dawkins asks Bill to please not shout at him. BTW, I think this has

been posted a few days ago... no biggie. Can't get enough of Dawkins -- a brilliant man.

[armyowalgreens]

2. O'reilly is a fucking moron. He doesn't even know the definition of fascism.

[MrModerate]

7. I think he knows exactly what fascism means. He's an entertainer who spews nonsense for money.

And not altogether moronic. His actual beliefs are irrelevant. Personally, I don't think he believes in god any more than I do. (I have no evidence -- other than his overweening hypocrisy on most other subjects -- to support that opinion, but I hold it nevertheless.)

[Go2Peace]

3. ORiely should be an agnostic, since he also obviously does not follow the teachings

of Jesus. That man "teaching" about what he thinks Christianity is about is laughable.

[Go2Peace]

4. One thing I really appreciated about Dawkins: He is the first aetheist I have met who is willing to

admit that science cannot answer the God question and does not have all the answers. Which is indeed the case, regardless where you stand.

[armyowalgreens]

5. There have been plenty of scientists throughout the years with the same principles.

[MrModerate]

6. And that science doesn't even try to answer the god question because . . .

it's not an area of scientific inquiry. Hell, science doesn't even *ask* the god question.

[armyowalgreens]

8. "Hell, science doesn't even *ask* the god question."- Yes it does.

And it is a question that has been subject to philosophical examination for thousands upon thousands of years.

[MrModerate]

10. Errr . . . philosophy is not science? n/t

[hokies]

9. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris also say this

[SkyIsGrey]

12. So if scince found no proof of any god or some type...

of supreme being you would stop believing then?

Our ability to learn and move forward should not be hindered by the fairy tales of our past.

[theFrankFactor]

11. O'Reilly is a Carnival Barker/Psychopath

His shtick is to antagonize and holler and drive the argument into the shitter where he can come out the "victor". He's a class A shit head and a model Republican.

[SkyIsGrey]

13. One thing that is not pointed out..

enough about these clips; it is that they are heavily edited. So even if Dawkins got the upper hand on O'rilley, O'rilley would edit to his advantage.

[theFrankFactor]

15. You Have a Good Eye

I noticed that too. The reply's by Dawkins were so closely cut that it was obvious. While I understand doing this for the purpose of time ( though O'Reilly could be a big boy and just DO IT LIVE!!!! ), given his pussy-assed temperament and fragile ego, we know he must be able to protect himself from reality.

[SkyIsGrey]

16. I never think O'rilley will..

ever do anything live.

One: He would not have control of the situation.

Two:"Fuck it will do it live" and that infamous book expo incident with Al Franken; proves that he has absolutely no self control what so ever.

Three: The reality this man believes in is the one that will give him the most fame and fortune at the given moment.

[insanity]

14. Both of them are blowhards

Who attempt to squash legitimate skepticism. Dawkins is right here though, religious theory has no business in a biology class.

[Gamey]

17. Typical bullshit that religion provides the moral compass!

[daedalus_dude]

18. O'Reilly can do his best. He still looks like a total fool when debating Dawkins.

Dawkins just owns his ass. I love it.

Dawkins has probably written more books in his life than O'Reilly has read. Sorry Bill, not your league.

[daedalus_dude]

19. The problem is that you usually cannot speak to idiots and intelligent people at the same time

and expect both groups to get something out of it.

Any person with half a brain realizes that O'Reilly's logic
is flawed. Dawkins doesn't even really have to point it out.

On the other hand, the idiots who don't believe in evolution
don't get what Dawkins is saying about "god of the gaps" and
"not mixing morality and science" anyway. He could have made
a such clear and precise point as "the sky is blue" and the O'Reilly
audience probably wouldn't have gotten it.

Dawkins argues reasonable points, while O'Reilly uses cheap tricks
in order to appeal to the dumb end of the spectrum and that any
person capable of comprehending what Dawkins is saying will not fall for.

I thought Dawkins won the debate. He made some clear points while
O'Reilly just blabbered some nonsense and called names.