Dawkins is promoting "fascism" says O'Reilly

[GrahamB]

[Ian]

without having watched the vid, let me guess - hitler was an atheist. QED.

[Buddy]

Bill O'Reilly is very popular but still a pompous ass hat. Why put him up as any sort of "authority"?

[Michael]

Haven't seen the video either, but Hitler certainly wasn't an atheist. I believe his primary religion was Theosophy, but he was in general an occultist into quite a lot of things from what I've heard.

[zenshiite]

O'Reilly is an ass, but so is Dawkins. Why is a fucking scientist acting like he's a fucking religion expert? The guy doesn't know the half of what he's talking about in that department.

[GrahamB]

You don't need to know anything about theology to talk about evolution.

[Steve James]

Well, actually, it was a fairly reasonable debate for a while. It went south when O'Reilly tried to be logical about what should be taught in science classes. Fair is fair, then, evolution should be taught in church (or, at least, Sunday school). Then again, lots of cultures have their origin stories; so, I guess they should be worked into the textbooks somehow. I mean, since we really can't "know."

[zenshiite]

You don't need to know anything about theology to talk about evolution.

Evolution is one thing, but the guy actively goes around spouting his atheist claptrap and attempting to dialogue about religions. The God Delusion was not about evolution.

[Andy_S]

Dawkins is the ultimate smug intellectual: In his own TV shows he is always seen flattening the opposition. Being shouted down by a highly opinionated loudmouth is, if not a convincing refutation of his credility, at least refreshing.

I have often felt that Dawkins might face a harder time in the US than he does elsewhere, and sure enough...

[Michael]

Dawkins is the ultimate smug intellectual

That was the impression I got watching him talk with Derren Brown.

[dave]

I can't see how creationism or intelligent design can be presented as viable alternatives in a science class. Science class shouldn't include filling in gaps in our knowledge with belief, like Bill O'Reilly seems to be suggesting. That would nullify the point of science altogether.

Having said that, I don't like the arrogant way Richard Dawkins comes across on TV, telling people their beliefs are superstitious rubbish. I think Richard Dawkins always comes across as overly aggressive and smug. He irritates me. I agree with him a lot of the time, I just think he could say things in a less provocative way.

But then isn't arguing what makes "good" TV?

[Ian]

[Michael]

That's a fascist octopus if I ever saw one.

[GrahamB]

re: Dawkins being "smug".

Dawkins is clearly intelligent and a bit posh, but I try not to hold that against him. He can help neither.

If you watch the video I posted at the start of this thread then which of those two men was the rudest? I don't think it was Dawkins.

"Eric Hoffer said it best: Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."

[Michael]

I was prejudiced by previous limited exposure to O'Reilly and Dawkins to not really want to take the time to download this vid and watch it. However, I thought it was pretty good. I'm surprised by O'Reilly's honesty. I thought they both did a reasonable job of presenting their views.

As far as being rude, I do think Dawkins is polite in the words he uses, but so disrespectful in his attitude and so arrogant that to me it's rude. Off with his head! But O'Reilly was a little less composed, the fascist comment is ridiculous, and I liked it when Dawkins told him not to shout. Also liked O'Reilly's comment that his belief in Jesus doesn't contradict Dawkin's science.

As far as which one I'd like to see get beng-chuan'd on a San Francisco bus, it's Dawkins by a huge margin.