Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

StrongHeartsWin · Apr 24, 2007, 01:58 am

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Come on, SHW. He's a British intellectual scientist. He does have an image to uphold. Cut the old boy a little slack.

At least he's not a raving lunatic like O'Hair was. Even I was embarrassed by her as the "official" voice of atheism.

lol. True. I am not saying he should have been in a passion of rage, but surely more than what he presented. Yes, he may have an intellectual image to uphold for his English colleageus, but he was presenting himself to the American audience and that required at least a subtle change in performance. But, I see your point, Isher.

brien · Apr 24, 2007, 01:36 pm

I saw the interview. It was interesting for the fact that, even though Mr Bill completely disagrees with Atheism, he did offer the spokesman time on, according to O'Reilly, "the most watched cable news show on TV". The book was plugged as well. This is, in and of itself, a positive aspect of the interview. The guy seemed perfectly capable of dealing with O'Reilly and came across as a thoughtful and intelligent spokesman for his philosophical beliefs.

One has to view O'Reilly for what it is on TV; a cable news network's answer to other cable network's news shows. Nothing more and nothing less.

Chaossaber314 · Apr 24, 2007, 02:18 pm

That was one of the more reserved O'Reilly interviews.

For once he didn't come off as a total ass. I was kinda shocked in that regard.

Osborn F Enready · Apr 24, 2007, 02:18 pm

Brien, I couldn't agree more.

devinmurphy · Apr 24, 2007, 02:36 pm

There is really not too much that could be expected out of this interview, being that it is ON the O'Reilly factor, and that it was aimed at his audience. However, most of O'Reilly's viewers don't know who Dawkins is, and this Interview painted him up to be nothing more than an Atheist. If O'Reily is truly a professional, then the least he could do for a scientist visiting from overseas, is AT LEAST give him a proper introduction. O'Reilly is a joke, i wish i could make as much money as him, just by getting on air and spouting off, the same statements over and over, about different topics. I'm sure he's got a dart board somewhere with excuses on it, and when a problem comes up, he throws a dart at it.... "Christianity"... "THE PROBLEM IS THEY DON'T HAVE JESUS!" (Anyone remember the movie BLANKMAN?)

InTheFlesh? · Apr 24, 2007, 03:32 pm

Did any one in America see the Dawkin's TV documentary they showed at prime time in England.

It was wonderful to see, despite the usual rubbish from Dawkins. I have never seen anything on TV that gave organised religion such a hard time, it was called 'The Root of All Evil'. I thought it was the start of a revolution against the Church...meh.

There was another show about how atheism was become a religion of its own and thereby was losing credibility. Its conclusion on the existance of God was a sort of shrugged 'dunno'.

Good on Dawkins for not getting riled by those who argue without reason, it can be very annoying sometimes and you start to lose coherency.

rez · Apr 24, 2007, 06:12 pm

haah the token dishonesty spewed from all Christians.

1.) Hitler was an atheist.
2.) Nature is so grand it could not have just poofed out of nowhere.
3.) The founding fathers were Christian

and the one that takes the cake.

4.) a theist's claim is not subject to the same methods of any other claim.

Yarn · Apr 24, 2007, 07:09 pm

I'm not a consistent watcher of the Bill O Reilly show, but of what i've seen from the guy, he is not the person many people make him out to be.

Sometimes he says obnoxious things, but only every now and then, and he didn't say any in this interview.

Who won the debate?

Neither side. I think Dawkins left you wanting to hear more from him, and I think Bill O Reilly expressed himself articulatly; albeit some of his arguements had obvious flaws, but his aura didn't really seem to suggest that he was pretending they didn't.

I've read about half of Dawkins The God Delusion and I agreed with him on some of the things he says in it before I started reading it, foremost, that god doesn't exist.

Reading it has given me more comprehensive knowledge of what arguements Creationists use to attempt to justify their conception of reality, and provided me credible refutations to all such arguements it cites.

The book asserts that Religion has a net negative impact on the world, and I am not sure it does.

I have not finished reading the part of the book which endevours to prove that it does, but the way I see it; Religion can make people feel negative and positive emotions, and can inspire them to do both evil and good.

If the book does not address the fact that religion can do good, and only points out the obvious-that it can do evil, I do not think it proves anything in regard to religions net effect on human well being.

gw120 · Apr 27, 2007, 04:54 pm

I had no idea that all those other countries mentioned had such high atheist percentages.

Quote:

Good on Dawkins for not getting riled by those who argue without reason, it can be very annoying sometimes and you start to lose coherency.

Agreed. I could never have the ability to stay in the same room with O'Reilly for as long as Dawkins and not punch him in the face.

Apr 24, 2007, 01:36 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
brien Iceberg Location: Connecticut Posts: 5,703	I saw the interview. It was interesting for the fact that, even though Mr Bill completely disagrees with Atheism, he did offer the spokesman time on, according to O'Reilly, "the most watched cable news show on TV". The book was plugged as well. This is, in and of itself, a positive aspect of the interview. The guy seemed perfectly capable of dealing with O'Reilly and came across as a thoughtful and intelligent spokesman for his philosophical beliefs. One has to view O'Reilly for what it is on TV; a cable news network's answer to other cable network's news shows. Nothing more and nothing less. Brien the Iceberg If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. M.T.

Apr 24, 2007, 02:18 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Chaossaber314 The Cake is a lie... Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,365	That was one of the more reserved O'Reilly interviews. For once he didn't come off as a total ass. I was kinda shocked in that regard. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Apr 24, 2007, 02:18 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Brien, I couldn't agree more. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Apr 24, 2007, 02:36 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
devinmurphy That Guy Location: Örebro, Sweden Posts: 8	Expectation There is really not too much that could be expected out of this interview, being that it is ON the O'Reilly factor, and that it was aimed at his audience. However, most of O'Reilly's viewers don't know who Dawkins is, and this Interview painted him up to be nothing more than an Atheist. If O'Reily is truly a professional, then the least he could do for a scientist visiting from overseas, is AT LEAST give him a proper introduction. O'Reilly is a joke, i wish i could make as much money as him, just by getting on air and spouting off, the same statements over and over, about different topics. I'm sure he's got a dart board somewhere with excuses on it, and when a problem comes up, he throws a dart at it.... "Christianity"... "THE PROBLEM IS THEY DON'T HAVE JESUS!" (Anyone remember the movie BLANKMAN?)

Apr 24, 2007, 03:32 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
InTheFlesh? Comfortably Dumb Location: England Posts: 57	Did any one in America see the Dawkin's TV documentary they showed at prime time in England. It was wonderful to see, despite the usual rubbish from Dawkins. I have never seen anything on TV that gave organised religion such a hard time, it was called 'The Root of All Evil'. I thought it was the start of a revolution against the Church...meh. There was another show about how atheism was become a religion of its own and thereby was losing credibility. Its conclusion on the existance of God was a sort of shrugged 'dunno'. Good on Dawkins for not getting riled by those who argue without reason, it can be very annoying sometimes and you start to lose coherency. "When the going gets weird, the weird go pro"

Apr 24, 2007, 06:12 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
rez technê Posts: 2,621	haah the token dishonesty spewed from all Christians. 1.) Hitler was an atheist. 2.) Nature is so grand it could not have just poofed out of nowhere. 3.) The founding fathers were Christian and the one that takes the cake. 4.) a theist's claim is not subject to the same methods of any other claim. [i]"One objection that many critics have is the problem of logistics. However, with technologically advanced aircraft at His disposal, transportation for Jesus was NEVER a problem ---- loser

Apr 24, 2007, 07:09 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Yarn Igneous Magma Location: Southwest Conneticut Posts: 250	I'm not a consistent watcher of the Bill O Reilly show, but of what i've seen from the guy, he is not the person many people make him out to be. Sometimes he says obnoxious things, but only every now and then, and he didn't say any in this interview. Who won the debate? Neither side. I think Dawkins left you wanting to hear more from him, and I think Bill O Reilly expressed himself articulatly; albeit some of his arguements had obvious flaws, but his aura didn't really seem to suggest that he was pretending they didn't. I've read about half of Dawkins The God Delusion and I agreed with him on some of the things he says in it before I started reading it, foremost, that god doesn't exist. Reading it has given me more comprehensive knowledge of what arguements Creationists use to attempt to justify their conception of reality, and provided me credible refutations to all such arguements it cites. The book asserts that Religion has a net negative impact on the world, and I am not sure it does. I have not finished reading the part of the book which endevours to prove that it does, but the way I see it; Religion can make people feel negative and positive emotions, and can inspire them to do both evil and good. If the book does not address the fact that religion can do good, and only points out the obvious-that it can do evil, I do not think it proves anything in regard to religions net effect on human well being.