O'Reilly vs Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M

Your thoughts on this little debate?  I think both men make good points.  O'reilly claims that if everyone followed Christ's commandment of loving thy neighbor, the world would be a virtual paradise.  Dawkins claims that while scientists don't know all there is to know as of the 21st century, he has faith they will given enough time.  

As if the only thing Jesus ever commanded was to love your neighbor. :lol: That's a whole other topic, though.

All Bill O'reilly did was show how much of a cop-out theistic evolution is. This notion that gawd helped evolution along is just a modern trend. No matter what evidence comes up, they will keep warping their beliefs to make their god fit with it. I get the sense that they just make it up as they go. Must be convenient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcPF57wymxg

This is a good response. For some reason, I can't make the link clickable. You'll have to accept my apologies while cutting and pasteing!

Bill O'Reilly as a representative for sane and educated Christianity??? :?ChiliDragon

While it was better than the other interview they referenced at the beginning, O'Reilly still came off as an ignorant sleaze ball.mikeg0788

Like the shifting of the burden of proof. _Tobli_

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"]While it was better than the other interview they referenced at the beginning, O'Reilly still came off as an ignorant sleaze ball.ChiliDragon

I think you give O'Reilly too much credit. :P 

O'Reilly did allright. Better than I expected really.

No idea why his position on a scientific issue is based on the moralistic integrity of Christianity though. That's like picking the winner of a boxing match based on how pretty they are.

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"]While it was better than the other interview they referenced at the beginning, O'Reilly still came off as an ignorant sleaze ball.ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"] Like the shifting of the burden of proof. foxhound_fox

If O'Reily was an OT member and that discussion took place here he would have gotten modded twice for trolling and thrice for "Intending solely to annoy other users". >_>

Dawkins is a pretty good debater actually, dont know what you are talking about.Gambler_3

Why on Earth pick him as an opponent?ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Dawkins is a pretty good debater actually, dont know what you are talking about.ChiliDragon

Ah sorry I thought you were attacking dawkins. Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Ah sorry I thought you were attacking dawkins. ChiliDragon

I think Dawkins puts a robust and sustainable argument across. His "scholarly" credentials certainly do pass inspection. Aren't repeated ad-hominem attacks a poor show?

Dawkins against O'Reilly is a bit like Evander Holyfield demonstrating his boxing prowess by beating up a 50-year old amateur that's never won a title... and who is openly acknowledged by the local boxing community as a has-been that never was. Poor choice of opponent. Find someone who can fight back.ChiliDragon

Dawkins against O'Reilly is an unfair debate since Dawkins has solid credentials as a biologist and also as an atheist philosopher used to debating his views. He is also respected by theists and atheists alike as being good at it. O'Reilly is not very well educated on the issue they were debating, is know as a poor debater to begin with, and the way he presents his religious beliefs as facts tends to be uninformed, poorly phrased, and sometimes incoherent. Dawkins is guaranteed to come off as the better educated and more eloquent one in a debate between the two of them, and if what he wanted was an intellectually stimulating debate with someone who can actually challenge his arguments rather than attack his character, Bill O'Reilly is not the opponent he should have chosen.ChiliDragon

Dawkins won this argument pretty handily. O'Reilly said that because science doesn't have evidence to explain everything, we must turn to Christianity, a religion without evidence, to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Obviously, this is problematic. Dawkins corrected him on that. O'Reilly accused Dawkins of being a fascist for not supporting the teaching of God in science classrooms and then said that we cannot not teach that many intelligent thinkers believed in God. O'Reilly is wrong for advocating support for teaching God in the science classroom, because the concept of God is irrelevant to what science is, and should only be taught in an actually relevant subject, like religion or philosophy. He is also wrong for using other intelligent thinkers who believed in God as support for teaching God in a science classroom. By that logic, we should teach socialism in science classrooms, because scientists like Albert Einstein supported the political philosophy. The only valid argument that O'Reilly had was that if people loved one another, we would be living in a close replica of a virtual paradise as Alter_Ego mentioned.

I liked the nice images thrown in when he mentions Jesus.  I remember that last interview with O'Reilly after Dawkins published The God Delusion, and at least this time O'Reilly isn't constantly interrupting him, so an improvement so far.  Dawkins handled himself well in spite of O'Reilly's baits such as "That's facism!"    

Dawkins against O'Reilly is a bit like Evander Holyfield demonstrating his boxing prowess by beating up a 50-year old amateur that's never won a title... and who is openly acknowledged by the local boxing community as a has-been that never was. Poor choice of opponent. Find someone who can fight back.ChiliDragon

Dawkins against O'Reilly is an unfair debate since Dawkins has solid credentials as a biologist and also as an atheist philosopher used to debating his views. He is also respected by theists and atheists alike as being good at it. O'Reilly is not very well educated on the issue they were debating, is know as a poor debater to begin with, and the way he presents his religious beliefs as facts tends to be uninformed, poorly phrased, and sometimes incoherent. Dawkins is guaranteed to come off as the better educated and more eloquent one in a debate between the two of them, and if what he wanted was an intellectually stimulating debate with someone who can actually challenge his arguments rather than attack his character, Bill O'Reilly is not the opponent he should have chosen.ChiliDragon