Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

[The_Giver]

g8etMHn4P6g

Go Richard, w000.

[Rokerijdude11]

O Rielly is a Tool

[Fonz]

Im going to have to agree with Roker on this one. he repeats the same old talking points. Dawkins utterly destroys him.

[9sublime]

The news presenter is a moron. He says that just because Dawkins can't prove the start of the universe means that he is wrong UNTIL he does. Then as soon as he does prove it, he has a chance of being right.

He's basically saying that something is the truth until someone finds a truer one.

[USMC the Almighty]

There wasn't any destruction at all. They simply disagree. I think O'Reilly had a great point in that since neither side is truly veritable, it's up to the individual to chose which he will follow.

But people really don't understand the whole church and state thing.

[vyo476]

There wasn't any destruction at all. They simply disagree. I think O'Reilly had a great point in that since neither side is truly veritable, it's up to the individual to chose which he will follow.

But people really don't understand the whole church and state thing.

I agree. As much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly he made some excellent points here. He isn't saying that Dawkins is wrong; he's saying that Dawkins' statement that he is wrong (which is in the book in case you were wondering) is a double standard because atheism is currently as unproven as the existence of God. You can't prove one way or the other and until then it's a matter of which you have more faith in: religion or science. Personally I'd lean more towards science because I think someday, through scientific means, we will be able to answer that debate once and for all. For now, though, O'Reilly was just requesting that Dawkins respect his views.

We've been over the separation of church and state thing before. Basically, "separation of church and state" is a much more literal term than people think these days. It means that the church and the state are two separate entities - in other words, no religious organization runs the government and the government doesn't dictate the policies of religion to religious groups. It does not mean that people with religious backgrounds should be barred from public service. People seem to think that separating church and state means separating spirituality and state, and that just isn't the way it works, now or ever.

[USMC the Almighty]

People seem to think that separating church and state means separating spirituality and state, and that just isn't the way it works, now or ever.

EXACTLY! Finally, someone who understands.

[Fonz]

EXACTLY! Finally, someone who understands.

Separating Church and state is exactly what it says. It refers to organized religion, not spirituality.

[USMC the Almighty]

Separating Church and state is exactly what it says. It refers to organized religion, not spirituality.

Then why do all the libs go nuts when a politician says "God" in a speech?

[vyo476]

Separating Church and state is exactly what it says. It refers to organized religion, not spirituality.

Read my post. I believe I said that.

[vyo476]

Then why do all the libs go nuts when a politician says "God" in a speech?

Because they believe it is an affront to those who do not believe in God (or at least the same God). A better term would be "my personal vision of God" or "my own belief in God" but then that screws with the eloquence of the speech (and people like GW don't need people messing with the eloquence of his speeches, they're bad enough already). They could always put little disclaimers up - "ALL REFERENCES TO DEITIES AND SUPERNATURAL/SPIRITUAL BEINGS OF ANY KIND REFLECT ON MY PERSONAL BELIEFS, NOT A DESIRE TO IMPOSE SAID BELIEFS ON THOSE TO WHOM I AM ADDRESSING" but that would look just plain ridiculous. Then again, McDonalds has to put warnings on its coffee cups that the coffee inside is hot, so what's ridiculous anymore?

[USMC the Almighty]

Because they believe it is an affront to those who do not believe in God (or at least the same God). A better term would be "my personal vision of God" or "my own belief in God" but then that screws with the eloquence of the speech (and people like GW don't need people messing with the eloquence of his speeches, they're bad enough already). They could always put little disclaimers up - "ALL REFERENCES TO DEITIES AND SUPERNATURAL/SPIRITUAL BEINGS OF ANY KIND REFLECT ON MY PERSONAL BELIEFS, NOT A DESIRE TO IMPOSE SAID BELIEFS ON THOSE TO WHOM I AM ADDRESSING" but that would look just plain ridiculous. Then again, McDonalds has to put warnings on its coffee cups that the coffee inside is hot, so what's ridiculous anymore?

But that's the whole point of The Declaration's "Creator". It's not religion because it doesn't refer to a specific God, but rather, it recognizes the existence of a being higher than gov't and it is this entity (not the government) that grants people their "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

It's important because it establishes each individual as the sovereign who is given their rights by the Creator and loans them to the government. Not the European style where the government is the sovereign who loans the rights to the citizens but can take them away at any time.

[vyo476]

But that's the whole point of The Declaration's "Creator". It's not religion because it doesn't refer to a specific God, but rather, it recognizes the existence of a being higher than gov't and it is this entity (not the government) that grants people their "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

It's important because it establishes each individual as the sovereign who is given their rights by the Creator and loans them to the government. Not the European style where the government is the sovereign who loans the rights to the citizens but can take them away at any time.

Well, perhaps if more politicians said "Creator" and not "God"...no, it'd have the same outcome, really. At least then we'd be able to yell at their detractors easier. Please understand, I'm not advocating what the far left has to say about whether or not saying "God" in a speech is permissible; I just understand them is all. I was raised in Massachusetts after all.

[USMC the Almighty]

I just understand them is all. I was raised in Massachusetts after all.

Does the name Roger Williams mean anything to you?

[vyo476]

Does the name Roger Williams mean anything to you?

I am NOT moving to Rhode Island. Roger Williams had the right idea back when it was just a wilderness. I actually live in New Hampshire right now, which is a bit better than Mass (the taxes are anyway). Weather's still terrible though.

EDIT: Ironically enough, Roger Williams and I are only one day off from sharing a birthday.

[Fonz]

Then why do all the libs go nuts when a politician says "God" in a speech?

It depends on what the speech is about. But It seems pretty childish for someone like the leader of the free world to make references to an imaginary sky fairy, especially when talking about real serious issues.

[Fonz]

Read my post. I believe I said that.

yeah its called agreeing with you.

[Fonz]

I agree. As much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly he made some excellent points here. He isn't saying that Dawkins is wrong; he's saying that Dawkins' statement that he is wrong (which is in the book in case you were wondering) is a double standard because atheism is currently as unproven as the existence of God. You can't prove one way or the other and until then it's a matter of which you have more faith in: religion or science. Personally I'd lean more towards science because I think someday, through scientific means, we will be able to answer that debate once and for all. For now, though, O'Reilly was just requesting that Dawkins respect his views.Do you even know what Atheism is? Atheism isn't a belief in something. Its simply the refusal to believe in nonsense for no good reason. You can't say that Atheism is unproven, because it has nothing to prove. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming that a magical invisible man is floating in the sky somewhere.

I see no reason to respect nonsensical beliefs. Someone with faith in a personal God shouldn't be treated any differently than someone who advocates that the world is flat. In neither case do these unjustified or unjustifiable beliefs deserve respect.

[The_Giver]

Fonz, it's just too bad that religious people basically run this country--it is just impossible to run the country without letting your faith influence your political actions.

[USMC the Almighty]

It depends on what the speech is about. But It seems pretty childish for someone like the leader of the free world to make references to an imaginary sky fairy, especially when talking about real serious issues.

Well the Creator is relevant to just about any speech concerning civil rights, sovereignty, or government.

[Fonz]

Well the Creator is relevant to just about any speech concerning civil rights, sovereignty, or government.

What does that mean?

[USMC the Almighty]

What does that mean?

It means exactly what I said. Go back and read my posts in this thread. They're not long. Then you'll see.

[Fonz]

It means exactly what I said. Go back and read my posts in this thread. They're not long. Then you'll see.

It was actually a challenge for you to describe how a "creator" has anything to do with any of those things.

[USMC the Almighty]

It was actually a challenge for you to describe how a "creator" has anything to do with any of those things.

Are you serious? I've explained it all throughout this thread.

[Rokerijdude11]

Then why do all the libs go nuts when a politician says "God" in a speech?

they do?

since when?

[Fonz]

Are you serious? I've explained it all throughout this thread.


indeed I thought you were talking about something else. excuse me.

[vyo476]

Do you even know what Atheism is? Atheism isn't a belief in something. Its simply the refusal to believe in nonsense for no good reason. You can't say that Atheism is unproven, because it has nothing to prove. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming that a magical invisible man is floating in the sky somewhere.

I see no reason to respect nonsensical beliefs. Someone with faith in a personal God shouldn't be treated any differently than someone who advocates that the world is flat. In neither case do these unjustified or unjustifiable beliefs deserve respect.

People who believe in religions believe in something. The statement "I don't believe in God or any religion" begs the question, "Well, what do you believe?" There is no "burden of proof" in that question - you just have to state what you believe in (and don't say you don't have an opinion - if you don't have an opinion on the matter than you haven't really thought about it and therefore don't deserve to belittle those who have faith in a higher power). It's what comes next that's the trick. Let's say that, as an Atheist, you believe in the Big Bang. You cannot fully prove that the Big Bang happened; there's partial evidence, sure, but the statement that you believe it involves an act of faith in regards to the unknown variables (of which there are quite a few).

Beliefs don't necessarily have anything to do with sense. By the standards of the Medieval period, it was partially provable that the Earth was flat - until Columbus and Magellan and others that I'm forgetting found a way to prove 100% otherwise. By today's standards, the Big Bang is partially provable - but a few hundred years down the road someone could potentially prove that we're 100% wrong about that, too.

I consider myself to be an agnostic. I'm skeptical about the existence of God (in any form) but I also recognize that there is a possibility. I've always found atheism to be very close-minded because they reject fully the concept of God for the same reasons agnostics are skeptical about it -we're just willing to admit that since no one can prove otherwise there is still the possibility that God exists.

[God]

Well, here I am... try disproving THIS!


Seriously folks, I eat atheist like Dawkins for breakfast.

[Fonz]

Well, here I am... try disproving THIS!


Seriously folks, I eat atheist like Dawkins for breakfast.

Did he give you heart burn?

[God]

Yeah, even God can't take all his BS... I mean, to believe in some higher being is just way more rational, you can't disprove it so you might as well. It can't hurt you, on the other hand, if you don't workship me you GO TO HELL!

[Fonz]

Yeah, even God can't take all his BS... I mean, to believe in some higher being is just way more rational, you can't disprove it so you might as well. It can't hurt you, on the other hand, if you don't workship me you GO TO HELL!

praise jaysus