Richard Dawkins and the O’Reilly Factor
I must thank the people over at Russell’s Teapot for the heads up on this YouTube video. Frankly, I’m astounded at O’Reilly’s strategy. This is, in my opinion, is how NOT to debate this whole atheist/theist issue. O’Reilly fails miserably I think. Why? For these reasons:
Personal testimony proves nothing;
- The argument that Christianity is a moral fiber doesn’t prove it is true. Military rule can provide law and order too;
- Deflecting the argument with silly humor helps nothing;
- Poking fun at other gods or religions doesn’t prove they don’t exist or are wrong;
- To assert that atheists have committed atrocities too is only an attempt to share blame. It proves nothing except that all humanity is susceptible to evil practices;
- Opting for Christianity just in case it is the right religion is simply spiritual gambling;
I could go on, but why don’t you just watch the video. I might add that I was impressed with Dawkins’ demeanor. Take a look:
atheism, dawkins, debate, naked, oreilly, pastor, theism, youtube Share This
In regard to excellent points 3 and 5, I have emailed O’Reilly the following:
www.russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/my-fantasy.html
If anybody still takes this guy seriously, he’s the one who forced the school board of Plano Texas to put up an additional website just to refute his charge that they were part of the “war on Christmas” by forbidding students to wear read or green.
Hey! I’m on an O’Reilly-free diet and generally cringe at the mere sound of his voice. He’s an entertainer, not a journalist.
One can win an argument, but lose a soul.
One can win an argument, but lose a soul.…I don’t get it.
Frankly I’m unimpressed by either of them. They’re both just toeing the party line and ended up boring me for 4 minutes and 40 seconds.
As an atheist, agnostic, non believer, infidel, etc, I do not, nor do I think Dawkins subscribes to a “party line”.
But, I was also board, though not for the same reason as Heidi. I was board because as per usual, Bill “smarmy lips” O’Reilly didn’t give his guest a chance to utter an uninterrupted sentence.
Why in hell would someone invite a guest on their show just so they can tell the guest what they think? That could have been done via email.
Randy, I was referring to this specific piece, not Dawkins work as a whole. He’s a brilliant articulate man, it’s just that the above video clip didn’t offer anything I haven’t heard many times over.
I agree with you that O’Reilly should have just shut up and let the man talk.
I must say that Dawkins has a lovely accent and impressive demeanor:)
1. The argument that Christianity is a moral fiber doesn’t prove it is true. Military rule can provide law and order too;
Well, military order with no moral basis might not be such a great thing…
2. Deflecting the argument with silly humor helps nothing;
I agree that it took away from the conversation.
4. To assert that atheists have committed atrocities too is only an attempt to share blame. It proves nothing except that all humanity is susceptible to evil practices;
I’m tired of both sides claiming the high ground on this. Humans are humans and will always do evil things.
5. Opting for Christianity just in case it is the right religion is simply spiritual gambling;
I agree that he did not put it very well, but then again, he was describing his own beliefs and is not a theologian. It would be preferable that someone debating Dawkins be more informed and ready to give serious and educated responses.
Thank you for sharing this. This kind of defensive atheist-bashing embarresses and saddens me as a Christian. It takes guts to stand up for your faith on national TV, especially with someone like Dawkins sat opposite you, but where was the LOVE? Sometimes I think we’ve lost the plot.
The “my jaw dropped open” moment: Dawkins says he humbly admits that science does not know everything and Bill jumps in to claim that humility is after all a Christian trait. Huh? The man was opening a door to real and amicable dialogue and Bill slammed it right in his face by taking the “superior morality” stance. I am totally appalled at Bill’s shameful behaviour, and even moreso at mine as I have ignorantly done the same thing in the past. Humility is a lesson painfully learned.
If I hear that “athiests=Nazis/Stalin/Pol Pot” argument one more time…
Let’s just say that, since I supposedly have no basis for my morals then I’m gonna act like it for a change.
O’Reilly gets a lot of attention for being rude. Being a serious reporter and interviewer isn’t part of his intent. I noted his glossing over of the crusades and ignoring Hitler’s extensive use of Martin Luther’s anti-semetic writings to justify and plan the extermination of the Jews.
I am not an atheist, but I do believe that an inerrant view of the Bible can lead to taking literally instructions to kill God’s enemies and even genocide. I think that Dawkins has some good points about religion being harmful.
If Christians would spend some time cleaning their own house, rather than correcting everyone else they might demonstrate that they understand Jesus when he says to take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of someone elses.
Richard Dawkins will be on ‘the hour’ monday evening for all interested
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1563
@Richard
The inerrant view of the Bible can lead to something really wrong when it is taken out of context and without the understanding of the finished work of Christ.
And from your statement “If Christians would spend some time cleaning their own house, rather than correcting everyone else they might demonstrate that they understand Jesus when he says to take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of someone elses[sic],” I suspect that you’ve taken Matthew 7:3-5 out of context.
Mind your own business, and people asked you to get more involved in the world.
Get more involved in the world, and people ask you to mind your own business.
I hope people can make up their mind.
Sigh.