Bill O'Reilly punks Richard Dawkins

[DiRNiS]

He's bat-shit-bonkers.

Lol, I actually wonder if theres some truth to that after watching that video. He was definetley acting like a nut cake.

The asshole attitude of Bill "Douchebag" O'Reilly reflects the entire viewpoint of Fox News ultra right wing conservative propaganda.

The strategy used by O'Reilly and Fox News in general is to invite someone he disagrees with and attempts to ridicule and make his guests seem like nutjobs. I have seen a few of his shows and he will shout and cut his guests' mic off once he realises they have a point that contradicts his views. What is the point of inviting someone if you are not going to let him speak and as soon as his guests say something he does not agree with he will call them a "nutjob", "loony", "fascist", etc.

Bill O'Reilly is a downright twat. But he is the perfect host for a network like Fox News really.

[Zen Badger]

I never argued that. I believe that since science fails to answer many questions about evolution, and about how we came into existence, discussions in the classroom should be open to include creationism as well. Instead of one side or the other dictating what we're allowed to think, present the arguments from both sides and let people decide for themselves.

Yes you did. The biblical creation myth is just that, a myth, with no evidence whatsoever to support it.

And if this myth is to be introduced into science classes then all of the other creation myths should be as well since they have equal validity i.e none.

This is what you fail to understand, Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. None of the evidence points to it.

In fact all of the evidence from all fields of scientific endevour(paleontology, astronomy, geology,genetics,etc,etc) flatly and completely contradicts creationism. There is NOT a shred of evidence in support. So how could it be offered as an alternative to Evolution?

Yes, because we're here.

I can say the same to justify the existence of God.

But there is evidence for Evolution, there is none for god.

---

Your response to "blood_pardon":
And the mass murderers and serial killers that say that god told them to do it, what do you think of their personal relationship with your god?

Just exactly, what did you rebutt?

I wasn't supplying a rebuttal to B-p

I was merely asking him what he thought of a serial killers claim of a personal relationship with god when he tells them to kill people.

And there is precedent in the bible for this sort of relationship I might add.

[Jaysyn]

1.) You can't prove a negative.

Did you actually read the article at that link? It actually contains several counter-arguments to the statement "You can't prove a negative", which is false and rightly so.

Yes, I did. I posted it as I did to see which side's anal-retentive would nitpick that particular point first. You win!

The first is hard because you need to look at the entire football stadium to see if there are any pins. The second is easy because a circle cannot have a square shape as an attribute; it is by definition circular, and therefore cannot also be square. One could disprove God by coming up with contradicting attributes (the omniscient / omnipotence paradox is an attempt at this).

Ok, so it's very, very difficult to prove something that is inaudible, intangible & invisible, doesn't exist.

Are we happy now?

[theVOID]

Dawkins had no point to stand on when O'Reilly got him to admit that science doesn't have all the answers.

To quote Brian O'dara

"Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

[HAYWARD]

Bill O'Reilly is a joke! hate this idiot! dawkins makes his look like a rite TWAT!!

[Captain Scarlet]

Im not going to bash on people for not believing in God, but I dont think anyone who calls themselves atheist should ever say "There is no God" in any sort of affirmative way. The proper answer is "I just dont know"

No absolutely not. As an atheist the 'proper answer' is that: "god does not exist". I would happily affirm and argue for that position. The agnostic/weak/negative atheist stance is that there is no reason to believe. I would argue that position is also wrong, but clearly we share more common ground than with theism.

As for the argument from personal experience of the divine. You may want to believe that your experience of the holy spirit is in some way veridical and affirms your faith. That is up to you. But it's an argument doomed if you think it proves the existence of the xtian god or any god for that matter. It is also the argument tripped out by dangerous and desperate religious demagogues the world over, who not only speak to the divine but surprise, surprise find that aft their encounters god thinks like them too and agrees with their actions/deeds/thoughts etc.