« Afghanistan | Main | Links With Your Coffee »

Dawkins O'Reilly



Well done, RD.

You're getting better and confronting without coming across as rude or meek.

I still think you'd do better re-branded as "agnostic", but hey- its progress, and I'll take it.

Really, Zap? My overiding impression after watching this was, "Is it really necessary to plug your book on shows like this?". I could think of several better ways to answer O'Reilly than RD did after being able to digest his "philosophy" for just a minute or two before answering - and I think RD could - and has - offered many better ways himself. This clipped, back-and-forth style of interview is just annoying as far as I'm concerned.

Annoying for rational people who want a substantive debate? I agree 100%.

However, in the first interview, Dawkins sounded meek and confused as O'Reilly just rambled on. At least here he stood his ground and you could tell he had an opposing view.

For all we know, some 12 year old was watching with Grandpa, and will grab this book, and thus start a wave of changes in that family we can only begin to imagine.

I see value to this. Then again, I'm an optimist, except when I'm a pessimist.

Amazingly, O'Reilly came off as moderate in this interview - allowing for evolution although overseen by a higher power.

Dawkins came off OK for me, but then I agree with him, so whatever. I do tire of those on the right equating religion with science instead of suggesting it should be a section in a philosophy class. However, religion and conspiracy theories seem to thrive on the fact that since not all of the answers are known, this faith must be correct or at least acceptable. IN terms of things like the anti-vax crowd or truthers, this is especially annoying because there is enough evidence to contradict their claims. There's history to refute the divinity of humans as deities (OK, except for that Rolf guy!), but since that was long ago and the faith is equally long, that stuff lives on.

Sometimes we just have live with the "I don't know" response and go on with logic and walk in the light that doesn't require faith to keep the light shining.

In the context of "teaching the controversy", it might be good to bring up astronomy.

No one would walk into an astronomy class and say, "because science doesn't have all the answers yet, we'll be teaching astrology and horoscopes for the next week."

You'd be ridiculed. Yet, astrology enjoys widespread popularity in this nation, featuring in virtually every newspaper.

I remember while serving overseas a fellow Marine ask if I believed in astrology.

"That hokey thing? No."

She was taken aback as a Wiccan yet appreciated my honest opinion.

We're among friends here, right? God, what a fucking douchebag O'Reilly is. Things like this don't even deserve rational analysis.

Dawkins can't answer everything so I'm going to stick with worshiping my hamster. Sure my hamster doesn't have any answers but I like having an imaginary friend who agrees with everything I believe.

Could I be one of your hamster's followers? I like the sound of a hamster god...

Cracked me up because it seemed like Bill O' felt he was really winning some points. I also thought it was funny when Dawkins asked him to stop shouting and Bill O' seemed genuinely surprised because, for Bill O', he was being downright subdued...

Dawkins asked him to stop shouting

That was one good moment. When Bill-O replied that it was his normal voice, I expected Dawkins to ask whether he'd ever considered going to broadcaster school (learning anything about journalism is way to much to ask).

RD has to fight fire with fire. If BO is going to appeal to the lowest common denominator and riff on ideas to get a feeling across, RD has to also - just say "no, you're wrong, that's like cooking eggs with a hammer" or something like that. make the logical point but make it with some god damned edge, not so meekly and even-handedly. Morals don't explain how cellphones work, so jesus isn't needed to explain how dinosaurs work. That's the bottom line and there's no argument.

It's almost unwatchable, as it's cut and pasted together as hell. I bet Dawkins had some pretty good answers that Billo just cut away. As he always does.

Why go on O'Reilly, anyway?

RD COMPLETELY dropped the ball. The proper thing to say would've been "Science classes teach science, not religion. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and - therefore - should not be taught in a science class." Period. Discussion over.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives