Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Go Richard, w000.

 

O Rielly is a Tool

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

EXACTLY! Finally, someone who understands.

 

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?

 

Read my post. I believe I said that.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.