Comments (46)
  1. Quote pulled from the comments section:

    “Richard Dawkins is a freak’n saint for going out again and again in defense of logic and science!”

    I’m not sure that commenter is fully familiar with the idea of “saints.”

  2. Honestly, the only thing that O’Reilley could do to surprise me at this point is not be terrible. Like, he could eat a puppy sandwich on air, and all anyone would do is shrug and say “What were you expecting? He’s terrible.” But if he had a courteous debate with someone, where he let his opponent finish a thought before beginning his own argument or counterargument, I would faint. That would be a sign of the coming apocalypse.

    • “What do you think about this puppy?”
      “What puppy? Oh, you have a puppy…he’s adorable, but why do-”
      “And what would you think about me putting mustard and ketchup on this puppy?”
      “What? Why on earth would you do that, are you -”
      *Eats Puppy*

  3. The hardest part for me is wondering who I would hate to have an argument with more.

  4. Good thing they aren’t related, or else this would be quite the Family Feud!

    On another note, I always get Richard Dawkins confused with Richard Dawson.

  5. Q: If you could have an argument with any person, dead or alive, who would it be?

    A: Bill O’Reilly. Dead.

    (And on that note, if you guys aren’t watching Suburgatory, then you need to watch Suburgatory, you guys! It is seriously very good, and also where I stole/modified this joke from!)

  6. They’re both dicks, I just happen to agree with one of those dicks more.

    • Exactly how I feel about the Tea Party and Occupy movement.

    • I don’t see what’s dickish about Dawkins here. He very calmly talks about the fact that assigning credit for existence to a divine being has no probative value when attempting to understand the natural world. Which is true! And he doesn’t shy away from calling creation stories myths. Which they are!

      Maybe someone would think that I’m being a dick for agreeing that creation stories are myths, but I personally think it’s far more dickish to claim that one of them is true and say that the rest are myths.

      • I completely agree with you, but I do think there’s something about the title”The God Delusion” that might poke at people a bit.

      • I think it’s mostly just difficult to argue against religion WITHOUT sounding like a dick. I mean, I’m an athiest, but I tend to stay away from those discussions, because you are basically telling people that everything they’ve based their entire lives around is a lie. Which, even if you are right, you’re uprooting their entire belief system, and that’s pretty dickish.

        • I don’t really give a shit if someone is religious, but it drives me crazy when people make spurious arguments about the value of religion. Like O’Reilly’s argument that religion has a limiting effect and makes them moral. There’s nothing to back that up, and the argument that religious certitude allows people to commit immoral acts in God’s name is at least as strong.

          • Completely agree there. It’s like saying the death penalty is a deterrent. It’s clearly not.

          • I just don’t see the point in trying to convert people to your religion, and that goes double for spending your life arguing against the idea of a God. It’s like trying to convert people, but with much lower stakes. At least people who want to convert you to a religion usually think that they’re saving your eternal soul. Not believing in a God is all good and well, but what do you really hope to get out of writing a book about it? That’s like hiding in a bathroom stall to prove your co-worker doesn’t wash his hands. It might make you feel superior, but ultimately, it just makes you a douche.

          • it’s not about arguing against the notion of a god, necessarily – Atheism isn’t a religion for one. All it implies is that a person lacks faith in theism. The issue that I think many Atheists have is that we operate on a day-to-day basis on laws and rules and processes that were developed with Theism in mind.

            Dawkins isn’t so much arguing that everyone should stop believing in god, but rather that we should really stop making these laws and rules and processes with any basis in religion. It has nothing to do with superiority, I think a lot of people are just fed up with how we run ourselves in 2011 already. “Stop telling everyone how to live, religious types” is I think the sentiment I get from Dawkins.

          • I didn’t watch this particular video, because I’m at work, but I’m more referring to his overall demeanor. He actually stated that “Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.” Which IS pretty dickish and superior.

          • I can agree that that sounds like a completely dickish superior thing to say if the implication is that Theism were evidence of a Crazy person’s hive mind . But also it is sort of true, and it doesn’t make that implication. Though “independent” is questionable, because honestly…there are, I’m sure, plenty of people who are Atheists to be cool, or because it’s popular – most Atheists in this day have made that choice despite education from parents or teachers to the contrary.

            What I mean is, there’s no superiority in that quote. He doesn’t say “Theism is crazy.” He’s just saying “Atheists shouldn’t feel bad. it’s perfectly normal to not believe in god.” At least, that’s how I read it.

          • I especially like (loathe) how he casually concedes the point that sometimes religion can lead to immoral actions with his “like with the Jihad”. Because, it’s those ‘other’ religions that have Holy Wars. He’s just fighting the good fight against this Crusading atheist. What is this, some sort of Spanish Inquisition!

      • I guess as a theist, I disagree (SURPRISE!!!!!!) on the idea that I’m incapable of understanding the natural world: My main disagreement with Dawkins is about our respective views on how reason is to be applied. I think reason only goes so far when it comes to spirituality and to demand that spirituality must play by reason’s rules in the exact way that they are applied to understanding the natural world in order to be valid is arguing from an unfair position. Granted, too many theists try to force reason to places it can’t go and thus look very stupid in the process. Like, I don’t think the world is 6000 years old, but I think if reason is applied to all of our existential experience, it can’t explain everything.

        • Using faith to explain science is just a ridiculous notion. That’s why they’re too separate things. Science and faith can interact just fine if you understand that much of the bible is metaphor. It’s the fundamentalists that are the idiots.

        • Hold on there, dude. Nobody said theists are incapable of understanding the natural world. What I said was that religious belief doesn’t help you to understand it. Discoveries in the natural world can certainly lead to reinforcing one’s own beliefs, but when those beliefs color the observation in the first place you just have bad science.

          • Ok! I agree with you there. So, honest question, do you think that phenomenon can take place from the atheist position?

          • Sure it can. Observing the natural world can reinforce whatever it is you believe in, to a point. If you believe in God, you can study the universe and see God’s fingerprints on creation. If you don’t believe in God, you can study the universe and see that there’s nothing necessarily supernatural or divine about it. Learning usually enhances your experience, speaking in broad terms.

            I think the narrower you go, though, it becomes harder to reconcile some religious beliefs with what you observe. The chief example that comes to mind is the prominent fundamentalist belief that the Earth is 6000 years old. It’s clearly not, but there’s still a museum out there that depicts humans and dinosaurs together. This, anecdotally (and getting slightly off topic), is my chief problem with religious belief. Once people believe something is true as a matter of doctrine, they’ll cling to it in the face of all reason and evidence. I find that very unnerving.

          • Oh, homie, try being on the inside and try to disagree. I’ve literally had friends end communication with me because I couldn’t make the correlation between a specifically short age of the planet and the falsification of the entire Christian doctrine: hint, there’s no correlation at all. I really haven’t found anything in my faith where I’m asked to believe in something IN SPITE OF what I do see, but rather believe in things that I just can’t see.

            I mean, I’m the first to admit, we believe in some pretty wild stuff.

      • In this interview, Dawkins is fine. But remember that little flame war with the female atheist blogger who complained about dudes trying to pick her up at atheist conventions, whatever THOSE are? Here’s his VERY dickish response:

        “Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

        Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so…”

        FYI, I’m an agnositc, but I still think people like Dawkins and Hitchens and Gervais are just as condescending and holier than thou than those they constantly ridicule for believing in myths.

  7. “Just Like Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin.” *Picture of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin*

    Uh. Thanks for that visual? Good work graphics dept.?

  8. I jumped a little in my seat when Bill O’Reilly screamed “A-Ha!” at Dawkins. Regardless of the debate at hand, that “A-Ha!” seemed inappropriately loud for the point he thought he was revealing.

  9. I like how O’Reilly doesn’t even put that much effort into stating his positions. He knows the gesture is enough, however lazy he appears while making it. It makes him kind of admirable, as in, “Wow, that guy truly does not give a shit about anything.”

  10. In fairness, Richard Dawkins is also an asshole.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.