«

»

Oct 09 2009

Bill O’Reilly is Still Proud of His Ignorance

In a brief pre-recorded interview, Richard Dawkins exhibits little patience for the blow-hard O’Reilly. If it had been me, I’m certain I would have exhibited much less patience. O’Reilly exhibits his complete ignorance of anything to do with science.

It is unusual for O’Reilly to have a prerecorded interview rather than doing it live. Dawkins appeared to be somewhat tired, perhaps rushed.

O’Reilly confuses (as a large number of Christians do) the study of biological evolution on earth with the study of cosmology. He quite blatantly shows that he has absolutely no idea what the word ‘fascism’ means. He seems to want to use the word as some bogeyman to scare his listeners (who in all likelihood do not know its meaning either).

O’Reilly is an idiot if he actually believes the tripe that spews from his foul maw every night on the Oh, Really? Factor. What a fucking moron.

7 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Mike Haubrich, FCD

    Wholly Crap! What a dim bulb ORLY is!

  2. zdenny

    I enjoyed watching this video because Dawkins demonstrates that his worldview is based on faith. O’Reilly obviously is not famaliar with all the evidence for Christianity so he also appears equally ignorant.

    We already know that it is a contradiction to state that Nature created and designed reality. First, Nature would have to exist prior to its existence. Second, the reason why certain genes make certain proteins and not others is a design in reality which takes us beyond nature itself.

    If Dawkins really had proof of his claims, he would not feel the need to even go on T.V. and promote his book which I am sure will have the effect of becoming another gospel in the holy book of Darwinian beliefs.

    I am sorry I don’t follow your blog because I can’t get it to read on my feed so I miss a lot of stuff on your blog. Hopefully that will be fixed someday. I love following your stuff…

    1. Dan J

      The problem with the feed was due to a misconfiguration of Google’s feedreader program. I’ve made a little workaround so that it’s okay for now.

      Dawkins demonstrates that his worldview is based on faith

      Denny, I think you’re going to have to get out your dictionary. You don’t seem to understand what the word ‘faith’ means.

      evidence for Christianity

      Oh, I see/hear/read evidence of Christianity all over the place, unfortunately. It’s on radio advertisements, in the newspaper, on web sites, on the television news. I have no doubts of the existence of Christianity. It’s a plague on humankind that we’ve been dealing with for many centuries, and our battles against its lies and viciousness aren’t over yet.

      If you’re talking about evidence proving the existence of a god, then that’s a completely different story. Go get your evidence, publish the reports in a peer-reviewed journal, win a Nobel prize for the work, then get back to me.

      Oh, you meant the ‘evidence’ in the form of the logical [*snicker*] arguments posted on your blog? Do you honestly have the temerity to believe for a moment that your ‘evidence’ or ‘arguments’ have the slightest bit of weight to them as far as anyone with more than an eighth-grade education is concerned? Unless, of course, you’re talking to another evangelical who is as soaked in the jeebus-juice as you are. They’re hopeless already as well, so you’ll do fine together.

      We already know that it is a contradiction to state that Nature created and designed reality.

      Well, no one was making that statement. Nature is a part of reality, which was not ‘designed’. Capitalizing the word “nature” when not at the beginning of a sentence is tantamount to anthropomorphizing it as a god or goddess. Are you turning pagan on us?

      If Dawkins really had proof of his claims, he would not feel the need to even go on T.V. and promote his book which I am sure will have the effect of becoming another gospel in the holy book of Darwinian beliefs.

      You continually fail (more likely refuse) to understand some basic concepts regarding science and the scientific method. Biology is not like mathematics. You don’t get ‘proof’ of the types of concepts we’re talking about here.

      Dawkins was on O’RLY’s show at O’RLY’s request. He enjoys slamming down some pathetic conservative Christian claptrap once in a while. If Pat Robertson really had proof of his claims, would ‘The 700 Club’ still be on television?

      Here’s a great Overview of the Scientific Method for your own edification. (I’m sure you’ve already seen this stuff. I know you’re not stupid. I’m also sure that you’re very misguided about how science works.)

      I also know that I’m never going to convince you that there is no evidence that any god exists, or that your Jesus existed at all. None. No evidence. It doesn’t exist. If it did it would have been published already, we would all be converts, and there would be a one-world religion: Christianity. If it hasn’t been discovered yet, then get out there and start looking. (Here’s a hint: Just because it’s in your Bible, that doesn’t make it evidence.)

      But it doesn’t, so there isn’t. It’s a fairy-tale made up to scare kids into behaving, because if they don’t, the bogeyman will eat them. That’s the gist of it. And if I can let maybe one or two people know that it’s really okay not to believe every little thing their parents or their pastor or priest told them was real, then I’ve made a small, but very hopeful change in this world. If I have to do so by pointing out the hilarious flaws in your logic, so be it.

  3. zdenny

    I appreciate the response Dan; however, there is no evidence for Dawkins worldview of atheism. You cannot define atheism as being science since both Christians and Atheist engage in science. Atheism is simply defined as a person who does not believe in “X.” It does not have a positive definition making it an irrational concept that no one should believe since it is the equivalent of believing in nothing. I am sure you see the logic in this.

    On top of this, Atheism does believe Nature created itself since we know that the universe had a beginning. All atheists believe the universe began to expand at some point in the finite past. Second, all atheist contrary to their definition also believe that DNA is designed to produce proteins. While they can describe what happens, they don’t know why this happens. As such, all atheists believe that reality is designed.

    All atheists are really Theists as a result my friend because Nature creating (beginning) itself is irrational and the idea of Nature designing itself is a Theistic belief.

    You really are a Theist and just don’t know it yet. Welcome to the brotherhood of believers; however, you just need to place your faith in Jesus Christ who alone is an expression of the love of God towards you.

    I hope you understand that reality is an expression of the love of God and that is why Christianity is the largest rationally consistent belief system in the world. This is why atheist has to believe in the distinction between fact and value; however, Christians see all of reality as the expression of the love of God denying the distinction between fact and value in Christianity. This is why Atheism will always be irrational and appear irrational to the vast majority of rational people.

    God Bless

    PS My reader now picks you up so thanks for fixing that!

    1. Dan J

      Hi Zdenny. I’m glad the feed works for you now.

      You mention:

      You cannot define atheism as being science since both Christians and Atheist engage in science. Atheism is simply defined as a person who does not believe in “X.” It does not have a positive definition making it an irrational concept that no one should believe since it is the equivalent of believing in nothing. I am sure you see the logic in this.

      No one is attempting to define atheism as science. The fact that it is not a “positive” definition does not in any way make it an irrational concept. I am sure I do not see the logic in this, because your argument fails to show any logic.

      I don’t know how many times I will have to explain this before you will understand it: Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, thus I am an atheist.

      On top of this, Atheism does believe Nature created itself since we know that the universe had a beginning. All atheists believe the universe began to expand at some point in the finite past. Second, all atheist contrary to their definition also believe that DNA is designed to produce proteins. While they can describe what happens, they don’t know why this happens. As such, all atheists believe that reality is designed.

      BZZZZTTTT!!! Wrong. [Capitalizing ‘nature’ like that is still not a good idea unless you are, indeed, turning into a pagan.] You simply can’t say (with any degree of actual certainty), “All atheists believe…”. The only thing you could apply to that statement is that atheists reject the idea of a god or gods.

      The cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe which is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation is called the Big Bang. Please don’t start mixing up cosmology and evolution. They are extremely different areas of study.

      You keep using the word ‘designed’ when making claims about what atheists believe. You are so very, very wrong in this that it is nearly comical. Stating that all atheists believe reality is designed, has got to be one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever heard.

      Okay, I have to take that back. that wasn’t even close to asinine when you come to the next two:

      All atheists are really Theists as a result my friend because Nature creating (beginning) itself is irrational and the idea of Nature designing itself is a Theistic belief.

      There’s that capitalization of ‘nature’ again. I’m thinking that you have some Wiccan leanings, zdenny. Going out for a big Samhain celebration this year?

      You’re using that word ‘design’ again, and you’re not using it well. Atheists believe there is/are no god or gods. That’s it. It goes no deeper than that. Atheism doesn’t influence cosmology, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

      You really are a Theist and just don’t know it yet. Welcome to the brotherhood of believers; however, you just need to place your faith in Jesus Christ who alone is an expression of the love of God towards you.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!11!!!1!!1 I laughed so hard I nearly pissed my pants! No matter how many times you try to say that atheism is reliant on faith or theistic belief, it won’t make it true. I do not believe in any god. I do not believe in the supernatural. Your beliefs embrace the supernatural. I don’t see how much more simply it can be stated.

      I hope you understand that reality is an expression of the love of God and that is why Christianity is the largest rationally consistent belief system in the world. This is why atheist has to believe in the distinction between fact and value; however, Christians see all of reality as the expression of the love of God denying the distinction between fact and value in Christianity. This is why Atheism will always be irrational and appear irrational to the vast majority of rational people.

      Reality is an expression of the love of god? Well, I don’t believe in god, so I must not believe in reality. Seriously, Denny, if your reality presupposes the existence of a deity, then it’s not the same reality s mine. I still don’t think that Christianity is rationally consistent, but I can’t argue against it having the largest number of adherents (no matter how strictly they adhere to the religion’s precepts). But, again, simply having the largest number of believers does not make it true.

      Once again, I’m short of time. Also, again, I’m enjoying our conversations, diametrically opposed though we may be. Neither of us will ever convince the other, but our conversations may serve to enlighten or inform others who might read them.

  4. Glendon Mellow

    I hadn’t watched O’Reilly ever before (Canadian without cable tv)…holy monkey, that was laughable. All those pious images of Christ and the cross every time the host speaks. Cheee-sy. Where were the moving camera angles and fade-ins on some e coli or depcitions of Tiktaalik?

    Dawkins came off the better. Glad he got to mention twice about the twisted path of logic running from “science doesn’t know how it all began” to “throwing in my lot with Christ”. Even if the theory of evolution by natural selection was wrong (which it isn’t) it doesn’t mean the supernatural world view of Christianity is right.

  5. petursey

    When I first saw Blimey O’Reilly on You Tube saying the Netherlands was verging on anarchy because it tolerates soft drugs and gay people actually getting married…I just thought he was an ignorant prick who’s never been out of the US ….after seeing this video (that made me laugh at his pathetic showing of Christian “holier than thou” arrogance…he’s gone further down that i thought possible in my estimation… a prime example of a bigoted twisted hating god-squadder.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>