• http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Gerrard/1378680137 Frank Gerrard

    This just illustrates how radical right wingers just use arbitrary slander and gibberish to discredit the intellegent, the creative and the thinkers. This kind of limited understanding of the way the world operates is what holds us back as a society and more importantly as a species.

    Fuck Bill O’reily in his ignorance-mongering asshole.

    • Redacted

      The Chewbacca Defense is hard to beat.

      • E.B. Wolf

        Chewbacca defense? Do you mean O’Reilly pulls people’s arms out of their sockets when he loses a debate?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Gerrard/1378680137 Frank Gerrard

    This just illustrates how radical right wingers just use arbitrary slander and gibberish to discredit the intellegent, the creative and the thinkers. This kind of limited understanding of the way the world operates is what holds us back as a society and more importantly as a species.

    Fuck Bill O’reily in his ignorance-mongering asshole.

  • Misinformation

    Wow. I’m no huge Dawkins fan but wow! Bill O’Reilly, wtf? Wow. Bill O’Reilly…wow, wtf?

  • Misinformation

    Wow. I’m no huge Dawkins fan but wow! Bill O’Reilly, wtf? Wow. Bill O’Reilly…wow, wtf?

  • DITM

    Thing is, Dawkins isn’t an especially intelligent thinker. The world of philosophy took one look at The God Delusion and threw it on the floor. The situation is a dangerous one because 95% of philosophers are atheist, and have very good arguments for atheism that nobody gets to hear. What happens if the 5% who are theist (like Bill Craig) get popular recognition, and spank Dawkins intellectually like a naughty child? What then? Will the atheist movement be over? It’s time we shook off this intellectual fraud.

    • Bfdvbd

      You’re pretty stupid. 

      • DITM

        I’m guessing that’s the strongest counter you have? Pathetic really. Would you really rather have Dawkins in public awareness than actual logical arguments for atheism?

        • DeepCough

          Dawkins is nowhere near as grating as Hitchens is. Dawkins is more a pissed-off biologist who can’t stand the fact that, even though Western civilization is in the 21st century, the fundamentalist religions of Christianity and Islam are trying to pull it back into the Dark Ages.

          • DITM

            Agree completely, but why can’t we have proper atheist thinkers at the forefront of the movement? Austin Dacey, Ted Drange, any of the others? There shouldn’t be a need for us to champion the worst intellectual proponent of atheism when there are much better ones around. All this does is let Christians see Dawkins getting debunked and think “right, that’s atheism out the way, back to our illogical beliefs,” while never knowing that there are proper arguments for atheism right around the corner.

          • FusionSaint

            I think the answer to that; is the fact that in the United States especially, the religious movements are so grating against any type of rational atheist thought that only the writers who have enough celebrity can actually get the face time to express themselves. Atheism is deemed devilistic and therefor not worth listening to. So only Hitchens and Dawkins can get the mic because they have some fame to back their claims. Sadly it makes for a very limited view of atheism but that is what most people get because its all their allowed to see. 

          • Guest

            it nothing but a @@#$@!# word, just like christianity is just a word…..and who gives meaning but oneself, or some asshole like bill o………who i stopped listening to because he is an obvious idiot.

          • Thomacat

            how about right in front of them.

        • Redacted

          How about some yo momma jokes?

    • Artor

      Do you have some specific criticisms? Please give examples. Not that it’s difficult, but he certainly hitchslaps O’Lielly here. I can hardly imagine Craig standing up to Dawkins in a debate without being shown for the ignorant, amoral sleaze that he is.

      • DITM

        The book The God Delusion is pretty shabby on many levels. The key one being that the central argument in the book (The boeing 747 gambit) makes absolutely no sense at all. It is states that for something to create something else, it must be more complex, and thus less probably than the phenomenon itself. There is no definition of complexity given, no attempt to explain why the creator must be more complex, and no acknowledgement of the fact that none of the things alleged to have been created are necessary, while God (christian’s argue) is. This argument is just terrible, and that’s why it doesn’t appear in any proper philosophical work.
        Another big issue I have with Dawkins specifically is his response to the fine-tuning argument. I actually don’t know if he says it in his book, but certainly in debates he argues for multiverse theory over theism on the grounds that the theory is beautiful. He gives no attempt at all to explain the physics behind the multiverse theory, just says it’s a beautiful theory and so why would you want to believe in a god over that theory? Well what if Christians think God is a more beautiful, and simpler answer than the multiverse theory?
        Other issues that come up with Dawkins but aren’t specific to him are phrases like “you can’t prove a negative” and “god doesn’t explain where the world came from because you can just ask ‘where did God come from?’ and push the question back one stage” and other such nonsense which Dawkins certainly cannot be blamed for creating, but has, sadly, popularised to a great extent.

        Dawkins certainly does beat Bill convincingly here, as he has done with all the stupider christian folk, Ted Haggard and all that. I don’t agree with you on the outcome should Craig debate Dawkins though. I think Craig would pretty convincingly defeat Dawkins, and the fact Craig constantly invites Dawkins to debate and Dawkins constantly refuses these invitations makes me think that both of them think that would be the result as well. Actually, I am not sure Dawkins has ever put himself up to debate a theistic philosopher. It definitely wouldn’t surprise me if he avoided all such encounters.

        • DITM

          lots of typos in there. Sorry about that.

  • DITM

    Thing is, Dawkins isn’t an especially intelligent thinker. The world of philosophy took one look at The God Delusion and threw it on the floor. The situation is a dangerous one because 95% of philosophers are atheist, and have very good arguments for atheism that nobody gets to hear. What happens if the 5% who are theist (like Bill Craig) get popular recognition, and spank Dawkins intellectually like a naughty child? What then? Will the atheist movement be over? It’s time we shook off this intellectual fraud.

  • meinkampf

    Are we shouting smile smile  :-  1:00 wow what a  wazza
    bill orieley will make you sad even if youre not prone to depression.

  • meinkampf

    Are we shouting smile smile  :-  1:00 wow what a  wazza
    bill orieley will make you sad even if youre not prone to depression.

  • Bfdvbd

    You’re pretty stupid. 

  • Mr Willow

    I love how every time O’Reilly has an Atheist on he jumps down their throats about how Jesus preached loving kindness and acceptance of others and peace, and the moment they are gone he sinks right back into his bigotry trench, complaining about poor people and immigrants, without showing the least bit of kindness to anyöne who doesn’t come on there and kiss his ass. 

    Truthfully, I find Dawkins to be insufferable, but he made Bill look like an utter fool (not a difficult feat, mind you). I don’t know the origin of everything, and frankly I find it irrelevant. Bill sounds like a broken record with an axe to grind.

  • Mr Willow

    I love how every time O’Reilly has an Atheist on he jumps down their throats about how Jesus preached loving kindness and acceptance of others and peace, and the moment they are gone he sinks right back into his bigotry trench, complaining about poor people and immigrants, without showing the least bit of kindness to anyöne who doesn’t come on there and kiss his ass. 

    Truthfully, I find Dawkins to be insufferable, but he made Bill look like an utter fool (not a difficult feat, mind you). I don’t know the origin of everything, and frankly I find it irrelevant. Bill sounds like a broken record with an axe to grind.

  • DITM

    I’m guessing that’s the strongest counter you have? Pathetic really. Would you really rather have Dawkins in public awareness than actual logical arguments for atheism?

  • _od?

    Bill….just so you know Ideologies are the Religions of the 20th Century and the mysticism of politically motivated social ideas is the culprit for those horrendous Regimes (same play book as the Monotheists, just replace God/Church with Dictator/Party).

  • _od?

    Bill….just so you know Ideologies are the Religions of the 20th Century and the mysticism of politically motivated social ideas is the culprit for those horrendous Regimes (same play book as the Monotheists, just replace God/Church with Dictator/Party).

  • DeepCough

    Dawkins is nowhere near as grating as Hitchens is. Dawkins is more a pissed-off biologist who can’t stand the fact that, even though Western civilization is in the 21st century, the fundamentalist religions of Christianity and Islam are trying to pull it back into the Dark Ages.

  • DITM

    Agree completely, but why can’t we have proper atheist thinkers at the forefront of the movement? Austin Dacey, Ted Drange, any of the others? There shouldn’t be a need for us to champion the worst intellectual proponent of atheism when there are much better ones around. All this does is let Christians see Dawkins getting debunked and think “right, that’s atheism out the way, back to our illogical beliefs,” while never knowing that there are proper arguments for atheism right around the corner.

  • Anonymous

    I think the answer to that; is the fact that in the United States especially, the religious movements are so grating against any type of rational atheist thought that only the writers who have enough celebrity can actually get the face time to express themselves. Atheism is deemed devilistic and therefor not worth listening to. So only Hitchens and Dawkins can get the mic because they have some fame to back their claims. Sadly it makes for a very limited view of atheism but that is what most people get because its all their allowed to see. 

  • Thomacat

    Science is magic to someone that is ignorant of the truth (Bill O’reilly).  Think about he wonder of technology, some of which has brought on both good and bad.  And dear Bill, the problem is with pompus asses like you who think they know god and don’t know jack….. 

  • Thomacat

    Science is magic to someone that is ignorant of the truth (Bill O’reilly).  Think about he wonder of technology, some of which has brought on both good and bad.  And dear Bill, the problem is with pompus asses like you who think they know god and don’t know jack….. 

  • Thomacat

    how about right in front of them.

  • Guest

    it nothing but a @@#$@!# word, just like christianity is just a word…..and who gives meaning but oneself, or some asshole like bill o………who i stopped listening to because he is an obvious idiot.

  • Anonymous

    Do you have some specific criticisms? Please give examples. Not that it’s difficult, but he certainly hitchslaps O’Lielly here. I can hardly imagine Craig standing up to Dawkins in a debate without being shown for the ignorant, amoral sleaze that he is.

  • Sangproductions183

    Oh look, its Cankerous Dickhead versus Pompous Dickhead. Or is it the other way around?

  • Sangproductions183

    Oh look, its Cankerous Dickhead versus Pompous Dickhead. Or is it the other way around?

  • Word Eater

    Yes, religion, particularly Abrahamic religions, are quite constraining.  Ask any woman who is pressured into early marriage and who is dutifully submitting to her husband how constraining it is.  Ask any child who is shamed, ostracized, and “prayed for” because they find themselves attracted to members of the same sex how constraining it is.  Ask the poor who gladly fork over 10% of their meager income to the church instead of buying food because God will reward their generosity how constraining it is.

  • Word Eater

    Yes, religion, particularly Abrahamic religions, are quite constraining.  Ask any woman who is pressured into early marriage and who is dutifully submitting to her husband how constraining it is.  Ask any child who is shamed, ostracized, and “prayed for” because they find themselves attracted to members of the same sex how constraining it is.  Ask the poor who gladly fork over 10% of their meager income to the church instead of buying food because God will reward their generosity how constraining it is.

  • Anonymous

    How about some yo momma jokes?

  • Anonymous

    The Chewbacca Defense is hard to beat.

  • ninjaunknown

    this is the only kind of guy bill o reily can make stupid. watching bill o reily is infuriating to watch.

  • ninjaunknown

    this is the only kind of guy bill o reily can make stupid. watching bill o reily is infuriating to watch.

  • DITM

    The book The God Delusion is pretty shabby on many levels. The key one being that the central argument in the book (The boeing 747 gambit) makes absolutely no sense at all. It is states that for something to create something else, it must be more complex, and thus less probably than the phenomenon itself. There is no definition of complexity given, no attempt to explain why the creator must be more complex, and no acknowledgement of the fact that none of the things alleged to have been created are necessary, while God (christian’s argue) is. This argument is just terrible, and that’s why it doesn’t appear in any proper philosophical work.
    Another big issue I have with Dawkins specifically is his response to the fine-tuning argument. I actually don’t know if he says it in his book, but certainly in debates he argues for multiverse theory over theism on the grounds that the theory is beautiful. He gives no attempt at all to explain the physics behind the multiverse theory, just says it’s a beautiful theory and so why would you want to believe in a god over that theory? Well what if Christians think God is a more beautiful, and simpler answer than the multiverse theory?
    Other issues that come up with Dawkins but aren’t specific to him are phrases like “you can’t prove a negative” and “god doesn’t explain where the world came from because you can just ask ‘where did God come from?’ and push the question back one stage” and other such nonsense which Dawkins certainly cannot be blamed for creating, but has, sadly, popularised to a great extent.

    Dawkins certainly does beat Bill convincingly here, as he has done with all the stupider christian folk, Ted Haggard and all that. I don’t agree with you on the outcome should Craig debate Dawkins though. I think Craig would pretty convincingly defeat Dawkins, and the fact Craig constantly invites Dawkins to debate and Dawkins constantly refuses these invitations makes me think that both of them think that would be the result as well. Actually, I am not sure Dawkins has ever put himself up to debate a theistic philosopher. It definitely wouldn’t surprise me if he avoided all such encounters.

  • DITM

    lots of typos in there. Sorry about that.

  • Kevin Stanislawski

    My cat is more reasonable than Bill O’Reilly.

  • Kevin Stanislawski

    My cat is more reasonable than Bill O’Reilly.

  • Kevin Stanislawski
  • Kevin Stanislawski
  • Oumi_Hegovai

    What a total hack O’Reilly is. What an ogre, what a true villain, what a cowardly, hypocritical sophist. He truly stands for nothing, and would attack anybody verbally or in print which his handlers commanded. He is a button man licensed to a corporada whored to a might-makes-right political ideology that died a debauched death in the mid 1990s; but which has not ceased to sit and stink for one day since… He likes a captive audience and hates a fair fight, rhetorically speaking. Dawkins could destroy him in a fair debate, but this isn’t about truth: it’s about winning and giving the plebeians words that hurt. It’s about collusion between hard-right politicians and sympathetic plebeians, a reboot of the Euro model of pols giving the hooligans orders through intermediaries. 

  • Oumi_Hegovai

    What a total hack O’Reilly is. What an ogre, what a true villain, what a cowardly, hypocritical sophist. He truly stands for nothing, and would attack anybody verbally or in print which his handlers commanded. He is a button man licensed to a corporada whored to a might-makes-right political ideology that died a debauched death in the mid 1990s; but which has not ceased to sit and stink for one day since… He likes a captive audience and hates a fair fight, rhetorically speaking. Dawkins could destroy him in a fair debate, but this isn’t about truth: it’s about winning and giving the plebeians words that hurt. It’s about collusion between hard-right politicians and sympathetic plebeians, a reboot of the Euro model of pols giving the hooligans orders through intermediaries. 

  • http://twitter.com/stanchaz stan chaz

    Ahhh yes, Bill O Reilly, bless his soul…. a prime example of Christian love and compassion. 

  • http://twitter.com/stanchaz stan chaz

    Ahhh yes, Bill O Reilly, bless his soul…. a prime example of Christian love and compassion. 

  • Reptoids

    LULZ

  • Reptoids

    LULZ

  • Anonymous

    You what?!? 1.23 hahaha classic!

  • JaceD

    You what?!? 1.23 hahaha classic!

  • E.B. Wolf

    Chewbacca defense? Do you mean O’Reilly pulls people’s arms out of their sockets when he loses a debate?