The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. This area contains articles sent in between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, click on the "Home" link.
I used to love Bill O'reilly as a christian. But when I started to see the truth I realized he was just a pig-headed right winger. I think Dawkins got 12 seconds of that 5 minutes. At least he had no spin in that interview. Dumb-ass.If he had every letter from our founding fathers he would've realized some of them didn't believe in Christ or God. Also it is common knowledge that Hitler was a devout Christian killing in the name of Jesus. Look up your facts O'reilly.
Facts that go against beliefs mean apsolutely nothing to people like O'Reilly. They have no problem accepting their beliefs as facts. Hence the problem. Right wingers could have the facts right in front of them, as O'Reilly did, and still not accept them. Too bad that he will more than likely never change. He is too rooted in his mythology. Jim Earl
Hey tmarcink, Hell, O'Reilly wasn't that bad on Mr. Dawkins. I think he let him make his points. I guess what the real problem was time constraint since it was such a short interview. As a guy who's pretty much a flaming liberal, I do like O'Reilly because he is not afraid to cross party lines once(he thinks it's absurd that Exxon is making record profits which is very non Republcan) in a while on certain issues(as can I), where as someone like Sean Hannity would never dream of disagreeing with our president and has his lips firmly planted on his ass. I loved it when O'reilly stated that Hitler and Stalin were atheists, and Dawkins fired back with the fact that both men had mustaches too but that doesn't mean all men with mustaches are bad. Wow were are up to 12% of non believers in this country. Kick Ass. To sum it up Mr. O'Reilly had some much weaker arguments that I am used to seeing the Christians post around here.xrayman
Interview" is hardly the appropriate term. O'Reilly, as always, brought Dawkins on then used Dawkins as a backdrop to spout his canned opinions. Wasn't an interview and wasn't a debate, just another faux snooze opportunity to exploit the status of someone else.Dawkins was embarassedIn the real world, we call that "cut off" or "bait and run argumentation".
If Dawkins was embarassed it was because of the idiotic things that O'Reilly was saying. Hitler viewed himself as the tool of Jesus and I thought that was pretty common knowledge by now. Guess not. Jim Earl
Oh, paul. You seem so empathetic towards Dawkins. You must be really sad for him to be so embarassed. If it makes you feel better I'm sure It's all just in your imagination.
Actually, considering some O'Reillyinterviews I've seen, this one wasn't too bad. He didn't stoop much to his usual self-righteousbullying and blustering, and did let Dawkins get in a few comments.But of course, he used the same tired example of Hitler and Stalin being atheists. Hitler was indeeda Roman Catholic and referred tohimself as doing "God's work".Yes, Stalin was an atheist, and yes, he killed millions; so byFundamentalist logic (an oxymoronif there ever was one) anyone whois an Atheist is going to be a massmurderer. Astreja, in a letterregarding another posting, made anexcellent point about going toyour local jail and finding outhow many Christians are behindbars.
It wasn't so much the questions that were the problem - some of them have been posed to Richard Dawkins by serious broadcasters.The problem was in the way that they were put - that sneering, condescending tone used throughout the interview, as if O'Reilly was flaunting his bias and ignorance. No wonder paul enjoyed it!
Great piece even though Dawkins didn't have enough time to shut O Reilly down. That being said , it was great to put atheism on a channel that is watched primarily by conservative christians of whom many don't really know why they believe the way they do. This will undoubtedly cause many to investigate further.
I am a huge fan of Dawkins, but I wonder why he and people like Ellan Johnson of American Atheists get on these shows. Johnson said in a recent podcast of Atheist Viewpoint that they gave her a list of articles that they were to discuss, but she ended up getting broadsided by something else. Are they that naive? Maybe I am wrong, but there has to be a better format than being targets for dumbasses like O'Reilly and Coulter.
I wish that Dawkins could have responded to where did it all come from nonsense! Bede Rundle in his " Why is there Something rather than nothing answers that. Anne Coulter is O'Reilly and Phil Schoofly's [ aks Phillis Schafly] love child.
The one thing I noticed is that nothing of religion was really spoken of. The only things discussed where what other people *thought* - "I think this is true" "you can't prove my belief is wrong""That guy believed in god and did...""That guy didn't believe and did ..."Bill showed no imagination or knowledge at all pulling up the same tired old arguments. Dawkins had a valid answer to every single one. Not that Bill actually listened.The key here is that Bill, nor any fundy, ever really stops to consider what they are hearing other than pinpoint some insignificant point that they can continue their attack from. Does anyone here think Bill went away from this with the new found knowledge that Hitler was a Roman Catholic? Has ANY believer actually listened to the responses Dawkins presented to those same, tired, arguments and realized that their arguments are nothing more than tired rhetoric?It really gets frustrating to see the self deluded never stepping back for a moment and considering the responses they get for their claims.
Hitler paid his Catholic church tax until he died. Stalin trained to be a priest and his exact beliefs are unkown.
What about all the Churches that supported the Nazi and fascist movement?
The Ace wrote:Yes, Stalin was an atheist, and yes, he killed millions...As an historian of Stalin's Soviet Union I can state that there was no evidence thst Stalin was an atheist. In fact, no one knows what his beliefs/nonbeliefs were. This is a myth that was invented during the McCarthy era - all communist countries were atheist, which is patently ludicrous.
O'reilly: "Being humble is a xtian virtue"Ww, i am humbled by mr o!reallys panache.I must go thank baby jesus now.
What I love is how none belief is picking up steam in this country. Five years ago Richard Dawkins would not have been on television let alone the O'Reilly factor. Now you have skeptics and Atheists like Sam Harris and Dawkins really becoming valid voices...I think we are headed in a positive director and the fundies are getting scared. I always love how they try to dominate the conversation and play the "Hitler was an atheist(which he was not)" card. That is the last bastion of their defense.Anyway, hopefully we will trend away from religion. Everyone will not be an atheist, but it will be good just to get away from the stranglehold of religion on this country. We are a first world nation guided by an imaginary friend. How sick is that?
It's funny how O'Reilly used the Stalin, Hitler strawman argument and then went on to say to Mr. Dawkins. "Now I am sure you are going to mention the crusades." As if that wouldn't have been fucking fair or pertinent to the argument.Why didn't Dawkins throw the old "Where did God come from?" question his way? I love listening to Christians answer that one.xrayman
It is not only wonderful, but it is absolutely imperative that great minds like Dawkins appear at venues such as Bill O'Reilly. Loaded and one sided though the format may be, those demographics are in desperate need of hearing the voice of reason, and hearing it in the polite, respectful manner that is typical of Dawkins. How refreshing is the voice of reason compared to the manic shouting of nonsensical Bible verses!BTW a good Hitler/Catholicism pictorial:http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
It was interesting that the host took the line that Xtianity was "true for me", while allowing that atheism could be true for Dawkins. On the evangelical radio station, one of the things the assorted pastors are always decrying is the belief that all Truth is relative nowadays, that there is no Absolute Truth. And then saying But it's not really so --- Jebus is the absolute truth, and so is the bible.And yet, what did we see in this interview? Bill O'Reilly saying that Dawkins was welcome to have one truth while he had another. And Dawkins saying that, no, truth doesn't work like that.So, the shoe was on the other foot, at least in this interview. I wonder what all the evangelical pastors made of that?
Whoops, sorry Dale, I stand corrected. Like many, I assumedStalin was an Atheist. I guessthe McCarthy people did a good job.One of the reasons I enjoy this site is because with so many different contributors, I learnsomething every day.
"the tide comes in the tide goes out, the sun rises and sets....", so cheesy crust, there must be a god!! WTF? Bill embarrassed himself with that one right off the bat, and then he went downhill from there.I think the part of the show with Dr. Dawkins was purposefully short because O'reilly knew he would be in way over his head.I too am just glad Dawkins got the exposure and a plug for his book! It is a step forward as far as I am concerned. Too bad that only 12% of the US have come to their senses, but at least the number is on the rise :)
Dawkins is as much of an evangelist as Billy Graham - he just uses a different bible (which is as 'unproven' as the one he criticises).
I enjoyed the interview, though I do wish O'Reilly had let Dawkins speak more. And Dawkins did get to promote his book. BTW, I like O'Reilly, but don't always agree with him.
I don't know anything about this Bill O'Reilly guy but he was more interested shooting his own mouth off rather than interviewing Dawkins.As much as I respect Dawkins, he doesn't do very well at interviews. He needs a bulldog to do his work for him.Brett Robson
Humility is a Christian virtue? That I cannot agree with. No religion owns or has a monopoly on virtue.
Post a Comment