1. Comment #35025 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 26, 2007 at 3:25 am

OHHHHH MY DOG!!! THIS IS GOOD STUFF PEOPLE. SIGN UP!!! http://www.earthsgreatestlawsuit.org/register.php

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

2. Comment #35028 by Logicel on April 26, 2007 at 3:29 am

Fantastic! Not only can big media format how information is disseminated, so can the little guys.

Other Comments by Logicel

3. Comment #35046 by plastictowel on April 26, 2007 at 4:45 am

...
that really wasn't that funny....

Other Comments by plastictowel

4. Comment #35053 by Russell Blackford on April 26, 2007 at 5:09 am

I thought it was hilarious: it summed up the whole thing so well, with the supposed interviewer haranguing the person he's meant to be interviewing, doing so in a sort of over-the-top, mouth-disconnected-from-brain manner - while the bemused interviewee just gives a wry smile at the buffoonery he's confronted with. Isn't that about what actually happened? Fortunately, Dawkins does a good wry smile.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

5. Comment #35054 by John P on April 26, 2007 at 5:10 am

Well, it's hard to find any humor in Pill O'Fight, but it's a step in the right direction.

Other Comments by John P

6. Comment #35060 by Lee Harrison on April 26, 2007 at 5:34 am

Pretty reasonable - not hilarious, but anything that shows Bill O'Lielly as a pillock has got to score some kudos.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

7. Comment #35096 by yoursdhruly on April 26, 2007 at 7:34 am

I thought that was hilarious! Throwing in with Jesus!

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

8. Comment #35114 by Absinthius on April 26, 2007 at 8:53 am

That was great

Just was wonderin... what happened to the tides?

Other Comments by Absinthius

9. Comment #35120 by MorituriMax on April 26, 2007 at 9:10 am

Bill: Science? Evidence? Evolution? Nah, not convinced. But hey, let me whip out my faith and that trumps everything you want to try and get to sink in to my made up mind.

Typical no spin zone, oh oops, unless religion or Jesus is involved.

As long as he stays away from religion I can agree with Bill.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

10. Comment #35137 by Vinelectric on April 26, 2007 at 10:17 am

You could see it in RD's face that he was a bit bored and unimpressed with the level of dialogue that O'reilly was trying to engage him in. If I can guess what was going on inside RD's mind during the interview it would be something similar to what we saw in this video !!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

11. Comment #35139 by maton100 on April 26, 2007 at 10:23 am

I'm throwin' in! I'm throwin' in! A remarkably astute analysis by O'Lielly.

Other Comments by maton100

12. Comment #35148 by Glacian on April 26, 2007 at 10:47 am

When I see interviews like this I can only scratch my head in confusion that anyone could regard Richard Dawkins as being so acerbic, hostile, rude, and curmudgeonly towards religion. This caraciture they pretend he is, some kind of nasty, cynical-spirited party pooper out to rain on everyone's spiritual parade, is absurd. He appears in every interview I've seen to be calm, reserved, articulate, thoughtful, and generally exactly the type of person I'd want to have on the other side of a debate.

O'Reilly is, as he typically is, sarcastic and obnoxious in the extreme, nevermind that is his remarks are totally retarded. Throwing in with Jesus? It seems most of these interviewers aren't too interested in really letting Dawkins expound upon his points, though that's not atypical of short TV interviews like this for anyone anyway.

Other Comments by Glacian

13. Comment #35155 by John the Atheist on April 26, 2007 at 11:56 am

I had a Christian friend watch this (sight unseen) and after the interview they called me, and all they could say is "Science doesn't have the answers! Dawkins even admitted it!!!"

(huge sigh)

They only hear what they want to hear. They just disregard the rest.

:(

Other Comments by John the Atheist

14. Comment #35321 by Cyboman on April 26, 2007 at 9:20 pm

The remix didn't make Bill look anymore ridiculous but at least it had nice music.

Other Comments by Cyboman

15. Comment #35326 by MelM on April 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm

So, science doesn't know all the answers. But, what does faith know? Zero, NOTHING! By its vary nature, faith can't "know" anything; all it can generate is dogma. And, it's all subjective, usually depending on the cult to which a person is born. Let's face it, "objective" dogma is an absurd idea.

Other Comments by MelM

16. Comment #35397 by lt_zippy2 on April 27, 2007 at 4:00 am

"Science dosen't have all the answers - reply!"

"We are working on it!"

Let's just for a moment take a snapshot of the reglious v scenetific arguments through history...

1. Religious - The Earth is Flat (sorry to bring it up here but it is implied in the Bible)

Scientific response - Due to observations and experience etc. The Earth is round.

2. Religious - The Earth is the centre of the universe

Scientific response (after religious authorities burnt scientists at the stake for pointing this out) The Sun is at the centre of the Solar System and we go around it, oh and by the way we are in no way the "centre" of the universe.

3. Religious - The Earth was created in 4004 BC along with the rest of the universe (Admittedly this is now only the view of the fundies, but not always so)

Scientist - from observable, repeated observations and experimentation in dozens of different disciplines of science the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe 14 billion (approximately)

4. Religious - "God has to make the tides go in and out"

Scientific - "The Moon's gravity makes the tides go in and out"

5. Religious - "Complex life had to be created by God"

Scientific - Evolution by natural selection developed complex life without any interference necessary from supernatural agencies.

6. Religous - "life had to be initailly created by God"

Scientist - "The origin of life was a chemical event (but we are still working on exactly how it was done, but we have a couple of ideas)"

Religious - "aha! you can't tell me exactly how so there cannot be a scientific explanation therefore God did it"

(Me - "But HOW did a god do it?")

I think the message here is that science chips away at our ignorance bit by bit. Religion just makes these wild claims as a default, but explains nothing. Science has overturned every religious pronoucement on how the universe works slowly bit by bit. The few remaining issues I'm sure will be explained scientifically, eventually.

"Beware the man who claims to know everyting - he is a liar"

lt_zippy2 - throwin' it in with the rationalists

PS apparently we have to faith to believe in science, nah, I believe in repeated experimentation and observation in realty.

Other Comments by lt_zippy2

17. Comment #35411 by Stuey on April 27, 2007 at 4:44 am

I have never said this about anyone in my life before but Bill O'Reilly makes my skin creep. I couldn't care less about his stupid views or his disgusting manners, but there is just something so creepy about him!

Does anyone else feel this? I mean, I know he's American, but does he really have to be so revolting? :)

Other Comments by Stuey

18. Comment #35449 by mainspark on April 27, 2007 at 7:41 am

An interesting point of view:


http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/pritchard/11539189/

Other Comments by mainspark

19. Comment #35474 by Alcedo Atthis on April 27, 2007 at 9:23 am

Bill is one of those arrogant faith-heads who thinks he has to look no further than the end of his own nose to see the truth.

There's more intelligent bacteria out there.

Other Comments by Alcedo Atthis

20. Comment #40179 by GregPreston on May 13, 2007 at 2:48 pm

I think it WAS the mustaches that made Hitler and Stalin do what they did.

Other Comments by GregPreston

21. Comment #42750 by dawgdoc2000 on May 19, 2007 at 10:47 am

Did anyone see the interview with Kirk Cameron where O'Reilly declared himself the winner of the debate with Dawkins? Hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQHCVaYNr9c

Other Comments by dawgdoc2000