RE: Richard Dawkins on The O' Reilly Factor (10.9.09)
October 24, 2009 at 9:35 am
(October 14, 2009 at 1:11 am)Nick A. Wrote: This last Friday, Richard Dawkins was on the O' Reilly factor, which for those who don't know, is a conservative (Republican) political and news program hosted by Bill O' Reilly. (who is a bumbling shouting idiot by the way..but that's a different discussion perhaps).
(I'm gonna use the new feature...) You can watch the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M
Anyway, the discussion they had (which was not live by the way...Fox News edited it before it aired) was interesting.
O Reilly's main argument, which he decided to spew throughout the interview, was the argument from ignorance. Despite Dawkins' continued alert to O Reilly's logical fallacies, Bill continued to assert this claim.
Bill decided that because science does not know yet the origin of the universe, that believing a deity or higher power is more acceptable.
Later on in the discussion, Bill asserts that if evolution is included in a science class then so should the other explanations for the origin and function of life. What he doesn't realize of course is the credentials for a truly scientific teaching, ex. evidence. Since when are classes taught based upon people's opinions? They are meant to be factual enlightenment, not a display of one side's view and the other's.
I like (sarcasm alert) how Fox News devotes much of the time allotted in this argument to Bill's 'preaching' rather than what Richard has to say. I also like how they give Former Professor of Biology at Oxford University and Best-Selling Author Richard Dawkins, the simple title of ATHEIST.
Your take on the discussion?
~Nick
I have expressed myself on this topic many times in this forum and I still fail to understand the reaction of Dawkins to the affirmation of his opponent as if atheism is a kind of religion not different essentially from the kind of faith in God and in Jesus.
Dawkins despises the Bible ,belittle her importance as a spiritual value and foremost considers the biblical God as a monster unworthy for a reasonable thinking man.
In my opinion the answer should be different.
Where from stems the belief in the deities from ancient times?.There is a common thrait through ancient Egypt,Summerians ,Chaldeans,people of the middle east or of the far east ,Greeks,Romans,Jews:mithologies,legends, scriptures.
The Jews came up with te bible where they invented a supranatural an invisible and indivisible entity which they named a many names essentially Jehova
and they attributted him the function of creating the world in 6 days.
Following the question who ceated God the answer is indoubitable:men has written down a legend about him, for many reasons.
True the science still doesn't know the mystery of creation of origin of life on Earth but has no reason to know it's all secrets taking into consideration the immense knowledge in the modern times and that to be sure other lay ahead of conquerring new knowledges.
The creationists exploit this fact saying that what science don't know about the origin of life they have the solution with God and in his faith as equivalent to reason.
Their conclusion is following that religion and atheism are some kind of two religions where two realities are preached in a similar way.
In my opinion atheist should reject creationists by demonstrating that God is created from ancient times by men and that always as a creationist mentions of God he is actually creating/recreating him in his verry mind as a result of his immagine about him which he has stored in his mind during his entire lifetime.
hock: I think what O'Reilly really meant was "I choose to profress this belief". I used to kid myself into thinking I believed too. The "choice" aspect was the fact that I chose to tell myself it was true. I didn't genuinely believe, I just told myself I did. I think O'Reilly may be doing the same. Although, his voice of reason is muffled by fear and anger far more than mine ever was.
