Major Tom Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/oreilly-debates-atheist-r_n_316178.html Richard Dawkins responds by telling O'Reilly to stop shouting at him. O'Reilly claims science has never advanced the human condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I Love Dog Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/oreilly-debates-atheist-r_n_316178.html Richard Dawkins responds by telling O'Reilly to stop shouting at him. O'Reilly claims science has never advanced the human condition. USA seems to have many people like O'Reilly. With a name like that he has probably been through the RC school/Church system and I feel sorry for him. I married a Catholic and it is completely repulsive, degrading and inhumane what the RC church teaches its followers. Does O'Reilly even realize that Jesus never existed? That he was a resurrected sun god, complete with virgin birth? Resurrected not in the way that Christians are taught, but resurrected and redesigned by the scholars and the leaders of the day to suit their holey babble and their fairy story. Does O'Reilly also realize that Christians are well in the minority when it comes to belief? World population 6.7 billion, Christians 2.1 billion(and falling fast), so at least two thirds of the World's population does not believe in Jesus!If it was an election, majority rules, so a big fail to Christianity. If it was in any way believeable then the whole World would believe in Jesus. They don't, so a huge Christian/O'Reilly fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/oreilly-debates-atheist-r_n_316178.html Richard Dawkins responds by telling O'Reilly to stop shouting at him. O'Reilly claims science has never advanced the human condition. Someone better tell O'Riley next time he gets sick to use leeches instead of a science-heavy doctor? How many lives have been saved by doctors? We are less scared because we know that comets and eclipses aren't a sign of the end of the world. Or all the wonders science created: flight, space travel, elctricity, etc. Or look at how forensics has brought many criminals to justice. Science is more than evolution and stem cells; it is many great things as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Eh, Bill O'Reilly and his comrades are a waste of oxygen. He just likes to scream at people. It would be entertaining as hell to see him get bitch-slapped right across his fat face on TV. I wonder how many times the fat on his face would jiggle from the force of the blow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Hmmm.... That interview wasn't live, so I have to wonder what they edited out of Dawkins' comments. I'd suspect that he destroyed O'Riley's arguments even moreso than what was presented in that clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 The "man" makes his living on a device invented by science, and he has the balls to claim science has done nothing to advance humanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Correction: He said that science has not advanced human condition in any moralistic way. In all fairness, I think he meant that science has not advanced the question of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Correction: He said that science has not advanced human condition in any moralistic way. In all fairness, I think he meant that science has not advanced the question of morality. But I would argue that, at least indirectly, science has advanced morality. The critical thinking associated with science has also helped freethinkers realize that it's not morally just to oppress others, force religious dogma, condemn gays, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Correction: He said that science has not advanced human condition in any moralistic way. In all fairness, I think he meant that science has not advanced the question of morality. But I would argue that, at least indirectly, science has advanced morality. The critical thinking associated with science has also helped freethinkers realize that it's not morally just to oppress others, force religious dogma, condemn gays, etc. My point is that O'Reilly didn't talk about science creating pacemakers, cars, TV, medicine, etc. To be fair, O'Reilly doesn't say science has done nothing to advance the human condition, but he is only talking about the issue of morality. It's his view, not mine, and I think he's wrong in that too, but he doesn't say science is all bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 My point is that O'Reilly didn't talk about science creating pacemakers, cars, TV, medicine, etc. To be fair, O'Reilly doesn't say science has done nothing to advance the human condition, but he is only talking about the issue of morality. It's his view, not mine, and I think he's wrong in that too, but he doesn't say science is all bull. Oh, I agree completely. I was just making a side point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 A good friend of mine went on the O'Reilly show once. She said he was a bigger asshole than he even lets on over the airwaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Correction: He said that science has not advanced human condition in any moralistic way. In all fairness, I think he meant that science has not advanced the question of morality. Which is funny considering he's talking to the guy who wrote the Selfish Gene. But wasn't Dawkins already on O'Reiley before and tore him apart already? I just remember him being on O'Reiley before and comparing Jesus to Apollo and O'Reily listing all the gods ever made and asking Dawkins over and over if he believes in any of them. I guess one episode of embarrassment isn't enough for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 My responses would have been that, "Yes, science has advanced the human condition in a moralistic way; by proving that our differences (race) is no more than skin deep, science has completely eliminated the notion that there are races of humans, thus leaving only one as a collective. Science has also proven that humans are more alike to other animals as well, thus bettering our treatment of them. "By having shown that we humans are all related, we have started to treat each other better." "Yes, it is fair to keep religion out of the science class, because you are to keep it in church. You would not want a scientist coming into your church teaching and espousing evolution (and no, this is not me stating that the classroom is the atheist church)." As for fascism, I would have replied, "Historically, fascism has be propagated by right wingers (like you) whereas I am more to the left, so it would suit you better to call me a 'socialist'." I would have also asked why does he insist on the "Judiao-Christian" belief when the Islamic, Wiccan, Hindu, Shinto, Asatru, Jainist, Sikh, and Baha'i are just as valid? That is not nearly all the world's religions but they all have just the same amount of "evidence" for their truth as Christianity does." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaisedPB Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Correction: He said that science has not advanced human condition in any moralistic way. In all fairness, I think he meant that science has not advanced the question of morality. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "morality". In the typical christian view of morality involving personal behavior (I know I'm generalizing), I don't think that is the role or mission of science - to address personal ethics and morality. But if human suffering and hunger are viewed under the umbrella of morality, then certainly science has advanced the human condition by allowing scientists to prevent death and the spread of disease with the development of antibiotics and to feed many more people by developing irrigation systems, pesticides, fungicides, and genetically modified crops more resistant to disease. Not to mention the development of electricity, refrigeration, high speed travel, prosthetic limbs, hearing aids, and many other inventions that have improved human living conditions, relieved human suffering and significanlty extended life expectancy. I can't stand the Fox News Channel (or any of the cable news networks for that matter) and their straw man touting shout downs that are supposed to pass for intelligent discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaisedPB Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/oreilly-debates-atheist-r_n_316178.html Richard Dawkins responds by telling O'Reilly to stop shouting at him. O'Reilly claims science has never advanced the human condition. USA seems to have many people like O'Reilly. With a name like that he has probably been through the RC school/Church system and I feel sorry for him. I married a Catholic and it is completely repulsive, degrading and inhumane what the RC church teaches its followers. Does O'Reilly even realize that Jesus never existed? That he was a resurrected sun god, complete with virgin birth? Resurrected not in the way that Christians are taught, but resurrected and redesigned by the scholars and the leaders of the day to suit their holey babble and their fairy story. Does O'Reilly also realize that Christians are well in the minority when it comes to belief? World population 6.7 billion, Christians 2.1 billion(and falling fast), so at least two thirds of the World's population does not believe in Jesus!If it was an election, majority rules, so a big fail to Christianity. If it was in any way believeable then the whole World would believe in Jesus. They don't, so a huge Christian/O'Reilly fail. And that means that based on their doctrine, the loving god of their theology is going to torture that 4.6 billion people (assuming all the "christians" are really "saved") for all eternity. Not to mention the billions that lived before them and the billions to come after (assuming the second coming isn't tomorrow... :-) ). Now that's something to base your morality on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 O'Reilly is an entertainer pandering to his audience, those folks whom the advertisers hope to connect with. More bombastic O'bagofwind is, more folks come to see and hear what the noise is about. I try not to waste my time with O'bagger.. Man seems to love sound of his own voice, much like the "Voice of England" character in V for Vendetta was. He'll pass soon enough as his message wears out and newer voices come in. folks always need to be entertained, by technology that beats a single page printing press.. kL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Not to mention we no longer toss aside the sick, mentally ill and deformed. Science taught us that they are not cursed by God, nor possessed by demons and some can even be cured. We now look at them with empathy instead of fear and scorn like it was in the bible's time. If that is not morality, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Not to mention we no longer toss aside the sick, mentally ill and deformed. Science taught us that they are not cursed by God, nor possessed by demons and some can even be cured. We now look at them with empathy instead of fear and scorn like it was in the bible's time. If that is not morality, I don't know what is. You know, we need a really concise, easy to remember, response that shows that morality and ethics are not biblical. The argument is too cumbersome. How about this: Morality and ethics are not derived from the Bible; they are sciences. These words are not in the bible, but are instead used to describe the science of behavrior. Hmmm? Am I right? Is the word "morality" in the bible? (I'm not at home now, so I can't check). Or, if morality is, then how about ethics? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Not to mention we no longer toss aside the sick, mentally ill and deformed. Science taught us that they are not cursed by God, nor possessed by demons and some can even be cured. We now look at them with empathy instead of fear and scorn like it was in the bible's time. If that is not morality, I don't know what is. You know, we need a really concise, easy to remember, response that shows that morality and ethics are not biblical. The argument is too cumbersome. How about this: Morality and ethics are not derived from the Bible; they are sciences. These words are not in the bible, but are instead used to describe the science of behavrior. Hmmm? Am I right? Is the word "morality" in the bible? (I'm not at home now, so I can't check). Or, if morality is, then how about ethics? Just a thought. If I remember correctly King David (or was it Solomon) even rewarded citizens with money for killing blind and disfigured people because they were inferior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Not to mention we no longer toss aside the sick, mentally ill and deformed. Science taught us that they are not cursed by God, nor possessed by demons and some can even be cured. We now look at them with empathy instead of fear and scorn like it was in the bible's time. If that is not morality, I don't know what is. You know, we need a really concise, easy to remember, response that shows that morality and ethics are not biblical. The argument is too cumbersome. How about this: Morality and ethics are not derived from the Bible; they are sciences. These words are not in the bible, but are instead used to describe the science of behavrior. Hmmm? Am I right? Is the word "morality" in the bible? (I'm not at home now, so I can't check). Or, if morality is, then how about ethics? Just a thought. If I remember correctly King David (or was it Solomon) even rewarded citizens with money for killing blind and disfigured people because they were inferior? See the second quote in my signature, I think that about sum's it up. The peculiar parts to a given Religion's Religious Morality-that part of the Religion that is unique to itself- shrinks as science advances. This is because Science does address questions like "Why are we here" or "What should we do in this or that situation", it just addresses them in a way that those who are religious are not comfortable with; science destroys irrational memes, systematically and impartially without anyone getting hurt or being hurt as little as possible (Triage is an example). The more things you understand the less moral judgment you can make on other people, that's how things work. The less moral judgment you make, the less feelings you feel to "make the world a better place" and thus the less altruism kills people under the guise of Religion or anything else. Dogma is one problem and even the Dogma of Non-Dogma is a problem, but in the end Science destroys these too. Nothing is left but knowledge that destroys irrationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Eh, Bill O'Reilly and his comrades are a waste of oxygen. He just likes to scream at people. It would be entertaining as hell to see him get bitch-slapped right across his fat face on TV. I wonder how many times the fat on his face would jiggle from the force of the blow... Rofl. +2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Why do I have a creepy feeling one day fundies and\or far right-wingers will start demanding that they want to pull their children from science classes as a whole (or not teach it in homeschooling) because it'll turn their kids into facists or tear them away from Jesus? Or start treating science in TV shows like they do anything remotely sexual (remember some that bitched about an article on a woman with two vaginas as smut even though no pictures were shown). Now what would the pundits do? Go with it even if I'm sure a number of them find that idea stupid\dangerous or dive into it at the risk of losing their audience (at best) or having them turn against them and label them as traitors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Why do I have a creepy feeling one day fundies and\or far right-wingers will start demanding that they want to pull their children from science classes as a whole (or not teach it in homeschooling) because it'll turn their kids into facists or tear them away from Jesus? Or start treating science in TV shows like they do anything remotely sexual (remember some that bitched about an article on a woman with two vaginas as smut even though no pictures were shown). Now what would the pundits do? Go with it even if I'm sure a number of them find that idea stupid\dangerous or dive into it at the risk of losing their audience (at best) or having them turn against them and label them as traitors? I am not sure why you have that feeling, however it is my opinion that should that happen then those who garner their ratings from this crowd of people would either have to find a new crowd to appeal to and make money from, or risk becoming the laughing stock of pretty much everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 To a degree, O'Reily and Dawkins are two of a kind. They both have some arrogance in thier demeanor. They both can be very irritating. O'Reily is tallented at swaying people with his bag of wind and Dawkins is good at methodically and logically tearing apart Fundy arguments yet being entertaining. Oh well.....to each his own.... At least Dawkins never bashed a kidnapped child for attention or demonized an abortion doctor to the point of influencing his murder and letting his peers laugh about it. Let alone brag how he's such a moral "Culture Warrior". In the case of two occassional jerks, I'll go with the more logical, less mean-spirited one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NonXNonExX Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I fully agree that O'Reilly is a buffoon and a jerk and that FOX "news" is a waste of air time. What i could never understand, though, is how the same channel also broadcasts the Simpsons, a cartoon that frequently pokes fun at religion and the religious. Did you see the hilarious take on the Rapture? O'Reilly and his ilk make me so upset i can't stand to watch them even for the entertainment value. I wonder if O'Reilly ever watches the Simpsons, or if he even understands it if he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts