1. Comment #34286 by v4ri4bl3 on April 23, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I wanted to respond to your recent interview with Mr. Richard Dawkins regarding Atheism. I was so excited to see him on TV as I am obviously a fan. Perhaps you should have read his book Sir. All of your rebuttals to Atheism were fully treated in his book and I feel that you are on the losing side.

For one, I do feel it is tragic that people such as yourself try to stereotype Atheists as immoral. This is a horrible argument for Christianity, in and of itself, but more importantly it is ridiculously false. I am an Atheist Sir. You will find no police record for me. No crimes, no violence, theft or tax evasion. You will find this in excess among Evangelical preachers, however. How dare you, Sir, pile all of us on a heap with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I think any honest Atheist would agree that bad men will be bad with or without religion. The sad thing about religion is it gives bad men a leg to stand on. When you can support your atrocities with scripture from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, you just may get more support.

My second point is to address how you feel that it takes Faith to be an Atheist. This is actually a joke Mr. O'Reilly. Deny for me that you were born an Atheist? The truth, as you and I both know, is that we are all born Atheists. We are indoctrinated to believe whatever beliefs are popular in our cultures regardless of any empirical, or objective evidence to support the ridiculous claims made in the Bible, or the Koran etc. It takes absolutely 0 faith, to see that there is no evidence for a god, and to conclude therefore that there is no reason for belief in one. Does it take Faith to believe there are no fairies, trolls, or a Lockness Monster Mr. O'Reilly?

The difference between men like you, at least in your religious preference, and Mr. Dawkins and myself, is that you accept a Truth merely because you desire it. It is definitely desirable to die and go to paradise. I'm sure thats what the 911 hijackers felt as well. And I mean no disrespect to compare you to them. You are most certainly not them. But the standard by which you determine your religious convictions is near identical. No Mr.O'Reilly, something is not True because it is Desirable. Something is True merely because it is. You may want Jesus to be you Lord and Saviour, and it may even be great if he is. But there is no logical reason to believe this is so. And you are left with scarred intellectual integrity.

Have a good day.

Sincerely,

James McDonald
Miami, FL

Other Comments by v4ri4bl3

2. Comment #34287 by ketandev on April 23, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Okay I'm a bit disappointed with Richard that he needs to go on a show like this to explain himself in a 3 to 4 minute window.

I understand you want to raise consciousness Richard, but doing it on a circus show is not going to do it. The host obviously is an idiot and what is more shocking is that a person of your calibre would accept to be interviewed by this bone head.

Also, can you not come up with new arguments other than "we're all atheists with respect to zeus", or "you don't see the need to worship apollo" ... we've heard these over and over again.

Please come up with something new next time you go on television, because frankly speaking, we're fed up of listening to the same old thing over and over again.

Also, please try to take these things seriously and go on shows like Charlie Rose or Jim Lehrer and do long un-interrupted interviews where you can substantially put forth your argument and be objectively heard. Even the audience would enjoy this setting.

Don't go on these 3 minute segments, it really does a dis-service to the very thing you stand for. When you do this, it's obvious that you are doing it for the money, because no scientist can present an argument in 3 minutes, anywhere.

I'm a huge fan of yours, but please, don't be desperate to go on shows like this.

Thanks and Cheers Richard.

Other Comments by ketandev

3. Comment #34289 by Rtambree on April 23, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Tell me the entire history of the universe and life on Earth and the arguments against religious thinking in 2 minutes (while I continually butt in) and, I'm sorry, that's all we've got time for, thanks for coming on the show.

I'm sick of the sound-byte format. Is it just so a program can brag about the numer of guests it has had on the show?

Hopefully, the Charlie Rose show next month will allow Dawkins to speak in sentences (maybe even paragraphs if we're lucky), not in rushed phrases of 5 seconds max.

Chomsky makes the point about this type of TV media format perpetuating the status-quo. If you've only got a short time between ad breaks, you can't state any position other than the accepted one, because otherwise, you'd have to lay down the premise, give a background and context to your argument, quote facts and statistics, deal with the exceptions and qualifications to your statement, and counter the objections.

Anyway, what's Britney Spears up to?

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #34290 by donaldito on April 23, 2007 at 6:21 pm

What I would love to see is for Dawkins, Harris, or someone else go on the show and give him what he deserves. It seems like everyone is always so ready to have Bill jump down their troats that they don't bother inciting a real debate. Go on there and tell him he's no better than the 911 highjackers in terms of the faith that he holds in something with absolutely no proof. Tell him it's his fault for being a moderate Christian that allows for fundamentalism to exist and be tolerated. And punch him in the face if he yells or cuts your mic! :)

Other Comments by donaldito

5. Comment #34292 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2007 at 6:23 pm

I despise bills silly little apollo joke,i notice thats a common tactic with many religious/non sceptical TV presenters, oprah for eg. they throw in a little distracting joke that quickly gives the audience an 'auto' chuckle and then move on to the next point they cannot answer. what this does is distracts less able thinkers into a false sense of security. It is a common tactic, sales people often use itknowingly or unknowingly.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

6. Comment #34293 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2007 at 6:27 pm

re the overuse of zeus/apollo etc, remember these seem like old arguments to us BUT for many this is new material.

I'll agree the 3 minute platform isnt worth the white noise in the transmission: calling all Americans, is there a credible TV platform for a worthwhile presentation of ideas??

Other Comments by phasmagigas

7. Comment #34294 by Duff on April 23, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Richard, far be it from me to tell you how to deal with this type of American/Fox/Entertainment Tonight kind of format, but it doesn't help to be polite with these kind of dirtbags. I wouldn't suggest you even go on the show, but if you do, get in their face and out smashmouth them or they will make you look like a pussy.

Other Comments by Duff

8. Comment #34295 by IanErikSmith on April 23, 2007 at 6:35 pm

While the down sides to such cable news appearances are well known and O'Reilly's interview techniques are less than admirable, there are positive aspects to consider.

We know that atheism tends to correlate well with education levels. From this we can infer that the number of theists who watch O'Reilly is higher than most programs. In addition to being a scientist, Professor Dawkins with this book has taken on the role of an activist which means seeking out people who disagree.

Atheism does not necessarily need a highly rigorous, academic case to be made for it...those books have been written and are available for anyone who wishes to pursue them (Michael Martin & Theodore Drange are amongst my favorites). Professor Dawkins' book makes atheism visible to a larger number of people and is more accessible than reading rigorous philosophy.

The point is that O'Reilly has viewers and by appearing on his show, atheism gains visibility. It may not convert the most zealous of the religious community, those who are totally immune to reason, but it does make those waivering in their faith aware of one place to look that can fuel their doubts.

Other Comments by IanErikSmith

9. Comment #34296 by yoursdhruly on April 23, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Professor Dawkins,

I agree with some of the other posts - why do you do these short interview segments? Do you really believe they get the message out or do you need to fulfill publisher's obligations to promote the book? I have the highest respect for you and you are my guru, if I ever had one and find it hard to see you being forced to make 30 second answers with a smile to someone who then breaks into Alec Baldwin's tapes...

Thanks.

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

10. Comment #34297 by Jack Rawlinson on April 23, 2007 at 6:36 pm

That was as bad as I feared it might be. O'Reilly motormouthed over Richard's politeness and didn't really let him press his points. This is a standard O'Reilly tactic, one he tends to use with people he knows he can't out-argue. Richard barely got a word in, and O'Reilly was only trotting out the same tired, repeatedly-debunked bullshit about Stalin and Pol Pot and "You can't prove God doesn't exist".

Unfortunate.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

11. Comment #34298 by Homo economicus on April 23, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Clearly the interviewer has not read the book.

Must remember RD's comment on Moustaches.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

12. Comment #34299 by Russell Blackford on April 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm

It was fine - the trouble is that it wasn't an interview but (as expected) an attempt by the supposed interviewer to lecture the supposed interviewee. Richard wasn't really allowed to finish off any point that he started to make, since he has actual arguments that involve multiple premises and qualifications, not just sound bites. But his wry smiles made the point about O'Reilly's tactics in the best way. I don't think it could have been handled any better.

I doubt that any damage was done in the eyes of fair-minded people, and in fact it may have piqued their interest, which is all that could really have been achieved by this gig. That, and showing Richard as a calm, considered, softly-spoken academic, not some mad, hubristic technocrat with a penchant for saying "MUAHAHAHAHA!"

O'Reilly's truth relativism was a bit lame and would appear that way to a lot of people, even believers.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

13. Comment #34300 by derwent on April 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Well... I'm not familiar with O'Rielly or his work, so from the comments on the other thread I was expecting the worst. However, I think that went REALLY well. Obviously some of you are disappointed, for various reasons, but I think Richard - and indeed all of us - should be very pleased with how this turned out.

O'Rielly was very calm and polite, he started the segment by mentioning some stats about non-belief in the U.S. and the significance of atheism in Europe, and he didn't give an opinion on this. He didn't say "Oh isn't this terrible that people don't believe," he just left the stats hanging and then gave a plug for Richard's book.

Complaining about the format or the shortness of the segment is pretty pointless - the show is what it is. Yes it is "sound bite media", but Richard did very well - Bill kept trying to have the final say but Richard always got the last word in (even if, in some cases, it was literally only a couple of words).

From (2), above:

"I understand you want to raise consciousness Richard, but doing it on a circus show is not going to do it."

Really? Why not? I understand this is a very popular show in the U.S., so what's inherently wrong with getting some exposure on it? You may think a show like this is somehow beneath you, but it is not below the people who watch it - who are the ones most needing their consciousness raised.

"Please come up with something new next time you go on television, because frankly speaking, we're fed up of listening to the same old thing over and over again."

You seem to be forgetting that you aren't the target audience for this message. And the target audeince in this case has probably not heard these sound bites before. It's the same trick politicians use to get a point across (and theists too, for that matter) and while it may certainly be annoying to those who hear it several times that doesn't make it any less effective for those who haven't heard it at all.

Considering how badly this could have gone, I think we should all be very happy with the result.

Congratulations Richard.

Other Comments by derwent

14. Comment #34301 by Skubel on April 23, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Nice Duff,
Get on the show and present atheists as ill-tempered; that will surely fly on a show where most of the audience has a predisposed negative view on secularists. We need to show the people that, on a large level, atheists harbor more compassion and understanding than the most devout religious.
Also, honestly, Bill's show doesn't even need guests if he is going to constantly interrupt and go on long-winded monologues about how his position is infallible, leaving little time for rebuttal from the guest.

Other Comments by Skubel

15. Comment #34303 by Circumspect on April 23, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Yes, a worthwhile interview in the sense that it did put the message out. Bill O. has a standard M.O. that Richard would have anticipated. So, although four minutes is totally inadequate, it's four minutes of time with millions of Fox viewers who are most likely not tuned in to any aspect of non-belief. The exposure value alone is worth it.

Other Comments by Circumspect

16. Comment #34305 by filthyatheist on April 23, 2007 at 7:04 pm

here is an interesting snippet from the Zuckerman study Billo mentioned at this site:

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

"What accounts for the staggering differences between nations in terms of rates of non-belief? Why do most nations in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia contain almost no atheists, but within many European nations atheists are in abundance? There are numerous explanations (Zuckerman, 2004; Paul, 2002; Stark and Finke, 2000; Bruce, 1999). One leading theory comes from Norris and Inglehart (2004), who argue that in societies characterized by plentiful food distribution, excellent public healthcare, and widely accessible housing, religiosity wanes. Conversely, in societies where food and shelter are scarce and life is generally less secure, religious belief is strong. This is not a new theory (Thrower, 1999). For example, Karl Marx (1843) argued that people who suffer in oppressive social conditions are apt to turn to religion for comfort."

Doh!

Other Comments by filthyatheist

17. Comment #34308 by Zaphod on April 23, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Poor amateurish arguments from O'Reilly.

Other Comments by Zaphod

18. Comment #34309 by Rtambree on April 23, 2007 at 7:12 pm

16. Comment #34305 by filthyatheist

Yes, the less you need God, the less you believe in Him.

Social welfare is more effective than rational argument in notching up the number of atheists, although it takes a lot longer.

Presumably the more impatient atheist advocates on this site want to see results in their lifetime, but it may be hundreds of years before our species grows up.

Afterall, there was an interuption of nearly 2,000 years between classical Greece and the Renaissance. The Dark Ages were at their worst when Christianity was its most pervasive.

Other Comments by Rtambree

19. Comment #34310 by nerdfiles on April 23, 2007 at 7:14 pm

The "other gods" argument, though very true and absolutely worthy of earnest thought, isn't very potent, I don't think. It doesn't have that punch or kick that arguments such as the Epicurus Paradox or any evidence-based argument. I think Dawkins is right in using a culturally based argument against the existence of or belief in any specific god. It does a good service to the issue since it is primarily and absolutely cultural why people believe in any one belief. So counter that with more cultural counter-points. Using evidence-based, logic-based, or consequence-based reasons for the non-existence of god really just flies right over most peoples heads--that's probably why Dawkins never uses them very often.

Well, except for the consequence-based one... Though, you have to build a trust in the people to have them agree, and that trust will only come from clear, reasonable, unbiased thinking...

I think if Dawkins says it enough, though, it will resonate within the people. Maybe...

I don't feel this was a waste of time considering that all publicity is good publicity, and publicity for atheism is always good when it's the rock-bottom in the eyes of the people. For this country, atheism's got nowhere to go but up.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

20. Comment #34312 by Teapot_Believer on April 23, 2007 at 7:17 pm

I'm so tired of that old and worn-out Stalin/Marx/Hitler argument. It seems that most Americans are conditioned to associate Atheism with bad morals. This is not the case here in my country, where the religious right led by Augusto Pinochet killed several left-winged priests in the 80's.

Other Comments by Teapot_Believer

21. Comment #34315 by cacahahacaca on April 23, 2007 at 7:21 pm

"Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil."

BRILLIANT!

Other Comments by cacahahacaca

22. Comment #34317 by Amorrn on April 23, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Richard, the best I can say about that "interview" is that you were well reasoned and polite, as always. Unfortunately, well reasoned and polite are not characteristics that go down very well on The Factor.

Other Comments by Amorrn

23. Comment #34318 by yoursdhruly on April 23, 2007 at 7:36 pm

I'm curious...has Richard himself discussed these interviews and what he feels about them? Guess it's too early to hear about the OReilly one, but the Paula Zahn show?

Also, are there popular shows in the US that would give him a longer time to discuss his concepts and if yes, are there any where people can go and petition for such a discussion?

...or am I being too naive?

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

24. Comment #34319 by Rtambree on April 23, 2007 at 7:39 pm

23. Comment #34318 by yoursdhruly

>are there popular shows in the US that would give him a longer time

Charlie Rose is about the best in the USA. Usually an hour with no smart-arse interruptions, ad breaks, inane celebrities, stupid gags, endless applause, time-filling band banter, etc. Rose is a good listener. Dawkins will be on early next month - 8th May and all episodes are web archived.

I think Charlie Rose is only mildly religious - a moderate, so there won't be many fireworks.

Other Comments by Rtambree

25. Comment #34320 by k1mgy on April 23, 2007 at 7:44 pm

I expected the combination of Richard Dawkins and Bill-O (as we refer to this creature here in the US) to be as volatile as rocket fuel. Instead, Bill-O bloviated on as usual while Dr. Dawkins maintained his cool through it all. If it was a struggle for Dr. Dawkins, the most difficult part must have been in remembering to communicate in grade school English, a requirement for Bill-O's dwindling audience. Gutteral and grunting would have been even more effective, but certainly a stretch.

The interview was far too short and too well controlled, but at the very least brought forth a good representation for Atheists everywhere:

Yes, all the good beer-drinkin', chaw-spittin', waddlin', swaggerin', Wal-Mart shoppin', god-lovin' 'Murcan's in trailer parks across this great land (plus the white house) got to see a real live Atheist, and as a bonus viewed the back of his head which surprisingly revealed no horns! By gorry Betty May, he ain't no monster after all!

Other Comments by k1mgy

26. Comment #34325 by chionactis on April 23, 2007 at 7:49 pm

You did a great job, Dr. Dawkins, especially with such a short window of time.

Other Comments by chionactis

27. Comment #34326 by Somniis on April 23, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Bill is silly. Hitler WAS a Catholic while he was in power, he even said he was doing those horrendous things in the name of "the Lord".

It's a shame Mr. Dawkins did not get to talk more. I suppose Bill knew he would get "clobbered", so to speak, if he actually went into a debate with him.

Other Comments by Somniis

28. Comment #34327 by roach on April 23, 2007 at 8:11 pm

That's it? It was so short. What a shame. As always, Richard was well-mannered and polite.

I did think it funny that Fox simply put "Athiest" in the title bar under RD. Why not "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University" or "Evolutionary Biologist" or "Best-selling popular science author"?

Oh well. All of O'Reilly's arguments were weak. Especially the "well it's true for me" nonsense.

I agree with Russell Blackford's post. That was probably as good as could reasonably be expected.

Other Comments by roach

29. Comment #34328 by scooternyc on April 23, 2007 at 8:11 pm

O'Reilly is a fraud. He's a coward of the worst type.

He interrupted Richard on every question before Richard had an opportunity to explain his answer fully or even elaborate. Bill typically does this along with throwing in stupid side arguments like he did about our Founding Fathers, etc.

The Declaration of Independence mentions the secular term, Creator, not god. Thankfully, the Constitution, our governing document, doesn't mention either.

This is O'Reilly's M.O. whenever anyone of Richard's intellect is on his show, he just tries to shut them up or shut them down by interrupting, blah, blah, blah.

If he really wanted a decent discussion he would've allotted more time and not interrupted Richard as often as he did.

Bill knows that his arguments are weak, at best. Anyone who says, "I have a personal experience" is no longer looking at evidence to fact. Fortunately Richard was able to say, yes, that's fine but it doesn't make it true, but could get no further.

A year ago May 2006, (May 9th I believe), Bill states on his show in response to a letter written to him that he doesn't interrupt guests if they are telling the truth; then tonight he admits that the whole Jesus thing, is HIS truth.

Therefore, what he meant last year was that he won't interrupt anyone who agrees with him (his truth) but his behavior towards those that do oppose him (perhaps factual evidence) will be to bully them, shut them up, talk over them, interrupt them or start yelling.

It's pathetic but Richard did with it what he could.

O'Reilly does make some good points on his show now and then, I've enjoyed certain editorials regarding various stories in our world, but his behavior so often gets the "override" from his distortions of life.

Just because you don't understand evolution Bill doesn't mean it didn't happen, science has plenty to say about it; plenty of evidence and if you read/listen to Massimo Pigliucci you would know that science has even created experiments by which to re-create evolution based on its theories.

Other Comments by scooternyc

30. Comment #34333 by mdowe on April 23, 2007 at 8:18 pm

I have to add my voice to those congratulating Prof. Dawkins on his handling of this segment. Bill O'Reilly is ... well ... I can't say it diplomatically ... he's an overbearing buffoon. This is not a promising combination for a quality interview. Professor Dawkins managed to dodge a lecture and still refute O'Reilly's (tired and predictable) droning with only the few seconds he was allowed to speak. It was the best anyone could have done with O'Reilly controlling the interview. To those of us that have actually read the book, is was amusingly clear that O'Reilly was completely unfamiliar with the book's contents. Perhaps somebody should have told him about the audio-book.

Other Comments by mdowe

31. Comment #34337 by mintcheerios on April 23, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Dawkins did well. Those few minutes of airtime will probably change the lives of many people.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

32. Comment #34338 by LeftCoast on April 23, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Two points:
1)o'Reilly has only a passing acquaintence with the truth; given that, however, I would think that the Jesuit training he recieved in secondary school would have served him better. I am still poking around the site, but I do agree with the NYT review that Dawkins has yet to take on the stronger theist arguments.

2) They are both wrong on Hitler. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, but by the time he was in Vienna, his belief system could be best described somewhere between deist and agnostic. He may have referred to "the Lord" in some speeches to religious audiences, but in his own journals and "Tischgesphrache," he referred to Providence, almost as if referring to a historical force.

Other Comments by LeftCoast

33. Comment #34339 by smoothington on April 23, 2007 at 8:27 pm

I greatly admire Richard for taking this dude on. Actually, O'Reilly was quite civil. I think overall Richard's limited time on the show did more harm than good. I don't think having any more time would have helped the atheist's cause as it would have only given more time for most of O'Reilly's usual viewers' minds to wander into much less rational thought.

Other Comments by smoothington

34. Comment #34341 by Lord_Satorious on April 23, 2007 at 8:30 pm

We cannot 'prove' Jesus was _not_ God? Excuse me, but it's called 'burden of proof', and the burden is not on atheists to disprove Jesus' divinity, the burden is on Christians because they're the ones claiming he was divine. Under O'Reilly's reasoning, you can make any crazy claim about the supernatural and it could be considered legitimate because it cannot be disproven. An old logical fallacy argument.

By the way, we all should go to O'Reilly's website and e-mail him with our support for Richard Dawkins. It might not change anything, but he'll see atheists are at least vocal and plentiful.

On a side note, does anyone else think that Bill O'Reilly is a closet agnostic? I got a feeling his arguments were an act, if not parody. I cannot honestly believe someone can justify their faith with those sorts of arguments. Or maybe it's just that moderates look more foolish than fundamentalists when it comes to religion.


Other Comments by Lord_Satorious

35. Comment #34342 by Rtambree on April 23, 2007 at 8:31 pm

32. Comment #34338 by LeftCoast

>but I do agree with the NYT review that Dawkins has yet to take on the stronger theist arguments

What are these stronger theist arguments? Bring 'em on!

We're sick of hearing the same ten objections. Let the theists have the stage. Let them present their strongest, clearest arguments and their best evidence.

(And we'll try not to fall about laughing).

Other Comments by Rtambree

36. Comment #34343 by MIND_REBEL on April 23, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Prof Dawkins destroyed him.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

37. Comment #34348 by marcdesm on April 23, 2007 at 8:49 pm

If talking about his own personal "truth" and saying that Dawkins has "faith" isn't spinning, I don't know what O'Reilly means by "spinning". We need to learn more about this personal language O'Reilly is inventing.

Other Comments by marcdesm

38. Comment #34350 by chamber on April 23, 2007 at 9:02 pm

I wanted to respond to your recent interview with Mr. Richard Dawkins regarding Atheism. I was so excited to see him on TV as I am obviously a fan. Perhaps you should have read his book Sir. All of your rebuttals to Atheism were fully treated in his book and I feel that you are on the losing side.

Question: Mr Dawkins said" we are working on it" an answer to Mr O'reilly's question? What is that? I really wonder?



For one, I do feel it is tragic that people such as yourself try to stereotype Atheists as immoral. This is a horrible argument for Christianity, in and of itself, but more importantly it is ridiculously false. I am an Atheist Sir. You will find no police record for me. No crimes, no violence, theft or tax evasion. You will find this in excess among Evangelical preachers, however. How dare you, Sir, pile all of us on a heap with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I think any honest Atheist would agree that bad men will be bad with or without religion. The sad thing about religion is it gives bad men a leg to stand on. When you can support your atrocities with scripture from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, you just may get more support.

So what? I am a believer in God as well! I have police record whatsoever? men might have a high risk to be bad if they don't have any faith. Because judgment day and fear of God and relatively love of God keeps us away from doing bad things. For atheist people, they have no restrictions and no boundaries since they do not believe that they will have to account for their bad deeds. Briefly killings and all kinds of murderers have no religion, no faith, no nation and no race.



My second point is to address how you feel that it takes Faith to be an Atheist. This is actually a joke Mr. O'Reilly. Deny for me that you were born an Atheist? The truth, as you and I both know, is that we are all born Atheists. We are indoctrinated to believe whatever beliefs are popular in our cultures regardless of any empirical, or objective evidence to support the ridiculous claims made in the Bible, or the Koran etc. It takes absolutely 0 faith, to see that there is no evidence for a god, and to conclude therefore that there is no reason for belief in one. Does it take Faith to believe there are no fairies, trolls, or a Lockness Monster Mr. O'Reilly?

The Universe is a book written by God with 400 sentence-like thousand kinds of animals and plants, and you still say there is no evidence because you do not know how to read this book. Once you can't read it, you start making false and illogical assumptions that all creations came from a worm and worm came from a Dna along with genes that were playing in a warm water pond, and a selfish gene found a cell by chance and luck. Genes were there at the beginning. So does this sound logical? You situation is really hopeless since you are saying that a book can be written by an author? Please let me know when you get to the point Mt O'Reilly pointed out. And try to accept that God is everywhere, where ever we look at, in His beautiful designs.


The difference between men like you, at least in your religious preference, and Mr. Dawkins and myself, is that you accept a Truth merely because you desire it. It is definitely desirable to die and go to paradise. I'm sure thats what the 911 hijackers felt as well. And I mean no disrespect to compare you to them. You are most certainly not them. But the standard by which you determine your religious convictions is near identical. No Mr.O'Reilly, something is not True because it is Desirable. Something is True merely because it is. You may want Jesus to be you Lord and Saviour, and it may even be great if he is. But there is no logical reason to believe this is so. And you are left with scarred intellectual integrity.

Have a good day.

Sincerely,

Other Comments by chamber

39. Comment #34359 by gwolf on April 23, 2007 at 9:40 pm

As Richard pointed out, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and I've seen good evidence that he never refuted his religion.

The crack about Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot being atheists is blatantly misleading. In general, our attitude towards religion boils down to, "Show me the evidence!" By contrast, Communism is making as outrageously declarative a statement about the existence of gods as Monotheists. Doing this puts them in the same class as certain Buddhists and Confucianists, who also don't have gods. Communism behaves like religion in all other ways; it has its own sacred texts, martyrs, more-than-human heroes, personality cults, a "priesthood," the most ridiculous hypocrisy, states that seem to prove the opposite of what is being preached, and finally schisms and heresies that act as masquerades for cultural and other national divisions.

In short, communism has a lot more in common with monotheism than a member of either group would like to admit.

George Wolf

Other Comments by gwolf

40. Comment #34360 by arthursanford on April 23, 2007 at 9:41 pm

O'Reilly is entirely wrong about Hitler's religious beliefs. Hitler grew up Roman Catholic and practiced various religions throughout his life. The swastika, in fact, was an ancient Hindu symbol for power. Hitler was a practicing occultist for at least the last decade of his life. The SS staff had various rituals grafted from Catholicism and quite a few occult sources. One included making a Nazi flag sacred only if it touched the original from the infamous bierputsch.

Ceteris paribus, Dawkins did ok. Fair and objective is not in the playbooks in the no spin zone. You should have seen how O'Reilly mowed down Sam Harris- just embarrassing.

O'Reilly is a pretty typical traditionalist who has a typical conservative viewpoint: things are better, status quo, religion or not, than if they progress liberally. A Joseph de Maistre for the sound-bite age.

Other Comments by arthursanford

41. Comment #34366 by Spinoza on April 23, 2007 at 10:14 pm

I'm so confused...

What does atheism have to do with mass murder?

The ONLY reason religion has anything to do with evil is the goddamned dogma and hierarchy cause it directly.

The reason Stalin was bad wasn't the "dogma" of atheism... and lack of moral BEHAVIOUR is a contingent property... it can be a property of atheists or theists...

Why doesn't someone mention that?

Other Comments by Spinoza

42. Comment #34368 by WilliamP on April 23, 2007 at 10:24 pm

gwolf,
I agree about Communism and I think atheists need to press that point. Communism is like a religion. Communists have faith in the eventual proletariat revolution. They did awful things because they (like many religious types) thought their cause was inevitable and that justified their actions. "God" was just replaced by "revolution" in their thinking.

Russell was baffled as to why Marx didn't believe in god despite his mystical claims about the course of history. I think most most atheists that base their atheism on reason would reject Communist fatalism too since the reasoning supporting is as good as that supporting religion.

arthursanford,
the same goes for Hitler who believed his reich would last a thousand years.

Other Comments by WilliamP

43. Comment #34369 by Goshzilla on April 23, 2007 at 10:28 pm

This was unintentionally funny. Stephen Colbert did such a spot on impression of Bill O'Reilly when Dawkins was on the show, that this interview played out exactly the same way.

Other Comments by Goshzilla

44. Comment #34372 by Fire1974 on April 23, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Unfortunately, I think even O'Reilly doesn't agree with what he said. His business is pandering to elderly conservatives. He's only happy because I and many others tuned in to his show when we might else have watched Kieth Olberman's or read a book. O'reilly has shown himself again and again as a shameless ignoramous who never gives due process to any position other than his own.

Other Comments by Fire1974

45. Comment #34381 by arthursanford on April 23, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Last thought on the "interview":

How is it exactly that O'Reilly, the "fact based guy," can say he is going to go with Jesus until the biologists prove how it all happened? It doesn't even really even seem like faith, just BS. Reasoning like O'Reilly's is a leap of something else.

Shall I just shrug my shoulders to an unanswered question, then go "Hmmm. Must've been Jesus who made it happen." Shouldn't the burden of proof be on a religious article more than a validated scientific theory? I personally would not go to O'Reilly for answers.

Let's just reverse the reasoning: I'm going to go with evolution until the creationist-ID-whatever groups prove that their "god" made it all happen.

The line of reasoning is just as valid, except that evolutionary theory is the model that best fits the facts.

Other Comments by arthursanford

46. Comment #34382 by MelM on April 23, 2007 at 11:26 pm

Dawkins wins, about 6 to 2.

O'Reilly's talk about an increasing percent of unbelivers in the U.S. and the huge percentages of unbelivers in Europe are stats that his audience has, most likely, never heard before and a nice win for our side.

O'Reilly's whack on science was really lame. Notice that he didn't blame all the worlds problems on "Darwinism" as so often happens with the wingnuts. Interesting, I think, and a win for our side.

O'Reilly said he wasn't "positive that Jesus was God." This was quite a statement indeed! He's showing uncertainty about the entire pile of Christian dogma. Wow! Win for our side! I don't think Pat Robertson and the other Dominionists are going to like this at all. O'Reilly seems to be uncertain and belligerent at the same time. I don't think the Apollo crack saved him from not being able to come back from Dawkins point--a win for our side.

As to Hitler etc, it's murderous totalitarian ideologies that kill so many people. Some are atheist, some are not. And, we have atheist ideologies that are not totalitarian. I think this would be a better rebuttal than the mustache comment. But note also that O'Reilly didn't ask the "where do you get ethics" question.

O'Reilly accepted the secularist point (a win for us) then countered with the "moderating influence" bit. Clealy, religion is a destabilizing influence that was brought under control by the "wall of separation". Anyway, Dawkins may not have heard this before and I'd like to know where O'Reilly gets it. American history is being rewritten by the wingnuts. So, you can't trust anything wingnuts say about American history. They will rewite and corrupt any domain of knowledge to fit their dogma and politcal agenda. See the book "Liars for Jesus".
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

Except for the "moderating influence" idea and the Communist murders, I think Dawkins did very well. Really, O'Reilly didn't try to portary Dawkins as a baby eating monster which is what I expected him to do. It seems that O'Reilly is not as much of a religious fanatic as I'd thought; he's got some real uncertainty going on inside I'd say, and it shows. Win for our side.

O'Reilly even had praise for the book: "your book is fascinating". Win for our side.

Other Comments by MelM

47. Comment #34383 by arthursanford on April 23, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Last, last thought:

O"Reilly said that Dawkins can't prove his belief in Jesus wrong. Very true, indeed, in the same way that you can't prove wrong the fact that my wife dislikes brocolli.

The belief is entirely subjective. O'Reilly is claiming that his private truth is above a routinely tested scientifically theory. Where his private truth is not even subject to any test, what he argues against has withstood that very test. That is what makes it scientific.

Other Comments by arthursanford

48. Comment #34384 by Master Of Puppets on April 23, 2007 at 11:35 pm

HAH HAH! O'Reilly made an even bigger fool of himself than I could possibly have imagined! The typical "Science doesn't yet know the answer, so I'll believe a made up story instead!" But I wish the interview was longer, and I hope Richard's smiles didn't come off as being snobbish.

Other Comments by Master Of Puppets

49. Comment #34385 by drbreakfast on April 23, 2007 at 11:39 pm

In addition to Charlie Rose as one other poster suggested, other decent forums in the U.S. are "60 Minutes," "Real Time With Bill Maher," (Maher himself is an agnostic), and of course C-SPAN.

The "interview" with O"Reilly was about as good as could be expected. However, RD missed a great chance to rebut O'Reilly's tired assertion of "Hilter, Stalin, Mao were 'confirmed' atheists."

In addition to adding that they did not act out of their puported atheism, RD could have mentioned that the countries with the highest number of atheists per captia tend to have the lowest crime, best social welfare, the least societal discord, etc. O'Reilly gave RD an opneing when he rattled off the stats on places such as Sweden, Denmark, etc.

Other Comments by drbreakfast

50. Comment #34393 by Corylus on April 24, 2007 at 12:22 am

I do think that this was useful in that Bill tends gloat when people refuse to appear on his program...the 'Come and have a go if you think you are hard enough' argument. Richard proved that he was not scared of the man: proving this point was worth the appearance.

I did like the line on moustaches as well...wait a minute though, What about Nietzsche? He had a magnificent one. It's true!! It's all about facial hair.. arhh.

Other Comments by Corylus