Dawkins' affable encounter with a blowhard

I think it would be hilarious if a guest just screamed at Bill to shutup, and then said: "sorry, I just always wanted to do that." I keep waiting, but it doesn't happen.

What the heck was that? You can't call that an interview, more like a monologue by Bill. Blowhard is right.

O'Reilly is like that slimy guy at every business meeting who stands up at the end, pretends his idea is a combination of all the heretofore-expressed ideas, and ends up ramming it through.

Every time Dawkins makes a point he can't counter, he jokes--that way, he gets to play to the Christians, but pretend as though he's completely centrist about the whole thing. Sorry, Bill--Jon Stewart you ain't.

Wow, Dawkins manages to be polite and get his point across. I wonder who'll call him "rude." And anyone notice how O'Reilly tries to make a relativist argument in the middle about his belief in Jesus.

He was pretty clearly outclassed by Dawkins.

Last night #24 on Amazon, today:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #16 in Books

He's keeping the message alive.

I like the way he tilts his head, looks slightly bemused by B.O., and soldiers on.

Good job.

Oh, I get it:

Hitler was a secular leader who used Providence in his writing and oratory. . . but he was a bad guy, therefore he was an atheist.

The Founding Fathers, on the other hand, were secular leaders who used Providence in their writing and oratory. . . but they were good guys, therefore they were Believers.

It just makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up, Billy.

Whew! I just finished shaving my mustache. I was just about to start my spree too. If Jesus is God, then what do we need God for? I've never actually understood the trinity concept, but apparently neither does Pappa Bear.

Book agent: Richard, you must go onto O'Reilly. Book sales are flagging.

Dawkins: Must I really?

Book agent: Don't worry, I will just get him to say to millions of people that your book is a blockbuster hit. It will be good for sales. Just enjoy it.

Dawkins: You owe me one.

I hope Chris Mooney and Nisbet caught the Dread Atheist Dawkins squaring off against O'Reilly last night, and saw how he managed to move that good ol' Overton Window a bit in his favor by being polite while still making his points effectively. So let's see more of Dawkins, not less.

Have Mooney or Nisbet been on Bill O'Reilly? What was that about Dawkins not having much influence because his books don't sell?

O'Reilly is "throwin' in". He's "throwin' in" with those guys. Brilliant.

>It's more like one round of a ping-pong match than the full bare-knuckle fist fight >we'd like to see

Speak for yourself, PZ. I don't watch shows where people are yelling at each other. In fact, that's why I never watch O'Reilly at all.

"I don't think we could of just lucked out by having the tides come in, the tides come out; the sun come up, the sun goes down. Don't think it could happen."

Now there's a statement of an intelligent man.

O'Reilly is "throwin' in". He's "throwin' in" with those guys.

Actually, I think that is a pretty good description of O'Reilly for everything. He goes with the flow to rake in the dough.

One of the best ways to deal with O'Reilly, and Dawkins works it very well, is simply to be quiet and let O'Reilly ramble on.

With about 1:45 left, O'Reilly goes into that lame schtick about Apollo, and Dawkins gets this kind of peeved look on his face. In truth, that schtick was a form of concession.

At least O'Reilly was reasonably courteous (by his standards), and he didn't cut off Dawkins's mike.

I noticed that too, notthedroid. O'Reilly looked really lame with that Apollo joke. It was obvious he backed himself into a relatavist corner that he couldn't get out of. It was great.

I was encouraged by his pointing out that the numbers of atheists in the US is growing, and that in Europe it's "stunning" - 85% in Sweden, and 44% in Britain. That's something that the over-religious folks in the US need to hear.

Then when O'Reilly tried to state why he is a believer, it sounded half-hearted. Like he's a believer because it's convenient and makes him feel comfortable.

O'Reilly's orders from the top for this interview were simple.

Demonstrate that there are real, live atheists in the world.

He succeeded.

He goes with the flow to rake in the dough.

Damn, so that's where I've gone wrong all these years!

Dr. Dawkins is truly a class act. O'Reilly, on the other hand, is one of those boorish lackwits that gives Americans a bad name in the eyes of the world. I cringed when he whipped out the "atheist" body count argument... it's embarrassing that there's even one American who still believes that crap, never mind one of our "public personalities."

Sweet Jesus, I loathe Bill O'Reilly!

O'Reilly is a typical bully. He needs his followers and leads with his ego. But he also very much wants to be accepted as an intellectual. That is his weakness.

He believes he was talking on the same level as Dawkins, that they were equals in that 5 minute non-talk. You could see the fear in him, too. He is very afraid that he will not be accepted as an elite and he wants it.

However, you can never forget that he is really a bully and that is how he got where he is. If he had even an inkling of how foolish he was last night, he would have exploded in his usual fashion and ended it.

So, Dawkins handled the show and O'Reilly very well. It was about as good as could be expected.

I was disgusted in the first 10 seconds. O'Reilly saying "we lucked out" and "it takes more faith to be an atheist". What nonsense he vomits up. I guess he didn't read Dawkins' book. And like always he panders to the ignorant FOX NEWS audience. A 12 years old would have done a better interview.

Also, O'Reilly spent twice as much time discussing the Alec Baldwin phone call. FOX NEWS is a joke.

I think for the future interviews of this sort, Dawkins (or whomever) should really come down on the whole "truth" claims. As much as O'Reilly et al want to keep "truth" as an absolute term when it comes to moral issues, they are totally breaking down to relativism when it comes to the faith itself ("well, it's the truth to ME"), even though they continue to use this same "truth" definition to describe it.

I think this would certainly express the flimsiness of the claims they describe as "moral absolutes."

I'd kind of like to know how B.O'REilly got his hands on "almost all" of the letters of our Founding Fathers. I have this image of bare shelves at Monticello or Mt. Vernon and a trail of parchment confetti where Billo has holepunched the documents for inclusion in his three-ring binders. And that's not even to mention the doodling in the margins...

"He believes he was talking on the same level as Dawkins, that they were equals in that 5 minute non-talk. You could see the fear in him, too. He is very afraid that he will not be accepted as an elite and he wants it."

You can learn everything you need to know about Bill from this fact: after being forced to leave CBS over a tiff about not receiving credit for footage shot during the Falklands War, he wrote a novel about an Irish-American war reporter who is forced to leave a TV news company over a tiff about not receiving credit for footage and then kills the TV company executives in revenge.

FINALLY someone is talking about the evils perpetuated on this world by men with mustaches.

From the New Yorker:

O'Reilly's account of what went wrong at CBS has him, as always, pissing off powerful people because he won't play their phony games. The key moment seems to have come when, during the Falkland Islands War, O'Reilly and his crew got some exclusive footage of a riot in the streets of Buenos Aires and it wound up being incorporated into a report from the veteran correspondent Bob Schieffer, which failed to mention O'Reilly's contribution. O'Reilly was furious, and after that, by his account, he was in career Siberia at CBS. During this period of forced inaction, he later wrote, "on a visit to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, I stumbled upon an amazing story. The tiny fishing village of Provincetown had become a gay mecca!" O'Reilly took a cameraman there and did a piece on the dangers this posed to local kids, but the network wouldn't air it. Not long after that, he left.

In 1998, after the launch of "The O'Reilly Factor," but before superstardom, he published a thriller called "Those Who Trespass," which is his most ambitious and deeply felt piece of writing. "Those Who Trespass" is a revenge fantasy, and it displays extraordinarily violent impulses. A tall, b.s.-intolerant television journalist named Shannon Michaels, the "product of two Celtic parents," is pushed out by Global News Network after an incident during the Falkland Islands War, and then by a local station, and he systematically murders the people who ruined his career. He starts with Ron Costello, the veteran correspondent who stole his Falkland story:

The assailant's right hand, now holding the oval base of the spoon, rocketed upward, jamming the stainless stem through the roof of Ron Costello's mouth. The soft tissue gave way quickly and the steel penetrated the correspondent's brain stem. Ron Costello was clinically dead in four seconds.

Michaels stalks the woman who forced his resignation from the network and throws her off a balcony. He next murders a television research consultant who had advised the local station to dismiss him: he buries the guy in beach sand up to his neck and lets him slowly drown. Finally, during a break in the Radio and Television News Directors Association convention, he slits the throat of the station manager. O'Reilly describes each of these killings--the careful planning, the suffering of the victim, the act itself--in loving detail.

In the novel, O'Reilly splits his alter ego in two, by creating a second tall, b.s.-intolerant Irish-American, a New York City homicide detective named Tommy O'Malley. O'Malley is charged with solving the murders that Michaels has committed, while competing with Michaels for the heart of Ashley Van Buren, a blond, busty aristocrat turned b.s.-intolerant crime columnist. Michaels, a possibly once good man driven mad by broadcast journalism, tells Ashley, "Journalism, as you know, is a profession that requires its participants to be aggressive, skeptical, and persistent in pursuit of the truth. Yet, the moment you enter your own newsroom, you've got to drop all that. The managers want total conformity. They want you to play the game, to do what you're told to do." And, later, "It's a self-obsessed business. 'How are things going to impact on me? Is this person my friend or my enemy? I'll get him before he gets me.' That kind of thing. It's a brutal way to live." Again and again, O'Reilly's characters remind us that on-air broadcasters are among the most powerful and glamorous people in America, and so the stakes in television newsroom politics could not be higher.

from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisTommy O'Malley, too, has a lot of ambition and rage, but he channels it into bringing bad guys (not just Michaels but a collection of urban ethnic street punks out of the old "Dirty Harry" or "Death Wish" movies) to justice. Michaels, though rejected by the suits, the swells, and the phonies, is not entirely immune to their values. He lives in a mansion, eats filet mignon, dresses stylishly, and can't dismiss the A-listers from his consciousness. He is drawn to places like Malibu, Martha's Vineyard, and the Upper West Side, partly to carry out his murders and partly because a kind of psychological undertow pulls him there. O'Malley seems not to know that they exist; he is broke and not stylish. He is morally redeemed by the police mission, just as Michaels is morally damned by television.

Anyone notice the first 10 seconds? Listen to them again.

"And anyone notice how O'Reilly tries to make a relativist argument in the middle about his belief in Jesus."

Yes! Convenient to be a relativist when it suits you. Most Bible believing Christians are also the moral relativists that they rail against.

If you watch enough of O'Really you know he likes to rant against judges and other authorities who go light on child molesters. Yet this Catholic rarely mentions the Catholic sex scandals and how the heirarchy looked the other way and moved around molesting preist from parish to parish.

FINALLY someone is talking about the evils perpetuated on this world by men with mustaches.

Uh-oh. They're on to me!

But what are evil megalomaniacs supposed to do at mustache-twirling time if they don't have one? Stroke a cat or something?

I pretty much yawned my way through this when I saw it last night. The only thing that was REALLY a shocker for me is that O'Reilly said he WASN'T SURE Jesus was God, but he was throwing in with him... then identified himself as a Catholic.

Doubtless he'll be going to confession for that one, if he doesn't find himself excommunicated. It's an interesting situation, because you MUST be in communion with the Catholic Church (be baptized and confirmed and CONTINUE to believe in and adhere to the canons of the church) in order to receive communion. Those who don't, receive communion "to their damnation". O'Reilly should know that.

At least Dawkins was consistent.

The thing that always makes me chuckle when I listen to someone like BO, is that in his mind there are really only two sides, Atheists and Christians. When Dawkins makes the point that it does not take faith to be an atheist and illustrates his point by mentioning Zues and Apollo, BO just rolls right over it. He completely misses the fact that there are hundreds of religions in which he has no belief what-so-ever. Despite the fact that he does not believe in those other gods, he maintains that some sort of faith is required to not believe in his god.

What a tool.

OEJ

I was honestly hoping for something longer and more substantive, especially after sitting through the part of the show preceding Dawkins' bit. By that point, I wanted to see someone take a 2x4 to Bill. Literally speaking, of course.

I actually though O'Reilly seemed a little bit scared of Dawkins...?

I agree with the comment someone made yesterday: exposing Fox's audience to a reasonable-seeming atheist is a victory for religious tolerance, in the same sense that getting a real scientist to debate with them is a victory for creationists.

Did I misunderstand or did O'Reilly put Japan in Europe early in the clip?

I'm going to have to find a way to work the word "falafel" into anything I say about this show. Why? Well, as the New Yorker sez:

Mackris produced what she said were quotes of O'Reilly on the phone discussing things that he imagined they might enjoy doing together. The most notorious of these was a scenario in which they would be in the shower and he would massage her with a loofah, a scrubby sponge—but then, as he went on talking, he slipped up and referred to it as "the falafel thing," which is funny not only because the picture of smearing wet mashed chickpeas on someone's body is profoundly unerotic but also because the mistake seems to be a peculiar by-product of O'Reilly's suspicion of things non-American. That's why, for O'Reilly, "falafel" is a fighting word.

Good job Richard Dawkins, you handled yourself very well and managed to get a few excellent points past Bill's wall of tired fundamentalist hand-me-downs.

It was good to see Dawkins call O'Reilly on the "Hitler was an atheist" lie. Everyone should be aware that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and pretty much every other enemy of humanity is a Mormon.

For those of you who want a bulldog for atheism, get PZ or someone like him to write a book and you-all buy enough copies to put it on the bestsellers list.

Then PZ can go on O'Reilly with a 2x4.

Best O'Reilly-does-science quote EVAR

"Science is not always incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours in a day. Alright. That's science."

Go, man, go!

Hey O'Reilly, the sun does not go up or down dummy! The Earth rotates on its axis, creating the illusion that the sun is moving when in fact it is the Earth that is moving. If I were in that chair instead of Dawkins, I would have hit him over the head with that response.

As for Hitler being an atheist, that is besides the point. What matters is the German people in the 1930's considered theirs to be a Christian country, and their culture was steeped in anti-semitism. Hitler could not have brought on the Holocaust without this context, regardless of his religious leanings or lack thereof.

When O'Reilly was talking about atheists having no basis for morality, Dawkins should have come back to the point about the 'stunning' levels of disbelief in Europe and Europe's lower crime levels than the highly religious US.

One of O'Reilly's common tactics when talking about something he does not like is that he will use code words like "that is a far left position" or "that is a marginal viewpoint" which basically means he shoots an idea or an argument down without actually having to argue it at all.

Re Sheldon

Actually, when the scandal in the Catholic Church was big in the news a couple of years ago, O'Reilly was very tough on Cardinal Law and his compatriots in New York and Los Angeles, stating that they belonged in jail along with the priests they covered up for.

This is probably not new to most of you but neither the American Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mention God, however, the Declaration of Independence does mention "Nature's God", a "Creator", and the "Protection of Divine Providence." That's it.

I wouldn't call that 'heavily referencing' God.

Brownian says (#46): "I wouldn't call that 'heavily referencing' God."

Well, it is heavy for someone who is just "throwing in" with them.

Although I do not agree with many of the points that Dawkins advocates, he came across well. Fact is, shows like BOs and all other similiar shows are a poor environment for debating. They are pretty much just the place to push books. It is no place for any intellectual.

My impression was that O'Reilly wanted to push the idea that advocating atheism was rude. We don't really know, so it's all a matter of picking what works best. It's arrogant to invade someone's private sanctuary and tell them their religious beliefs are false.

This is an argument which will resonate with a broader group of people than "no, you're wrong, God exists." I suspect the people behind O'Reilly told him that many of Dawkins' most outspoken (and presumably devastating) critics were other atheists arguing for mutual respect. Directly confronting people on matters of faith is something no atheist should do. Perhaps this is why O'Reilly seemed to display a rather odd mixture of relativism and aggression. He wanted to hit him on all grounds.

however, the Declaration of Independence does mention "Nature's God"

The phrase used is the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

85% of Swedes are atheist. Holy Jeebus, no wonder they have the highest crime rate on the planet.
Oh wait, that's not the Swedes you say ? In fact they have one of the lowest on the planet, you say ? How can that be ?
But I am glad that 0'Reilly understands the "physiology" of the tides, the water going out and coming in. Unbelieveable that Dawkins kept a straight face.

The Declaration of Independence: O'Reilly said that it refered to God "heavily". In fact, it refers to God 4 times and each in a very generic kind of way to put across the point that the colonies have an absolute right to independence while not acknowledging any religion in particular.

Thanks, quork. I didn't intend to sacrifice context for brevity.

As I suggested to a Mormon coworker, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is about as deist as one can get.

If they had meant anything more specific to Christianity, I assume they would have said so.

I think this will be more satisfying to watch for most people here: "Beginning May 4 on most PBS stations, a three-part series will be aired, "A Brief History of Disbelief." It will be hosted by British author and stage director (and medical neurologist) Jonathan Miller."

I can only hope Dawkins was there on some other business and did not go all that way for 5 minutes of listening to Bill's ignorant views. If you really hate Billo try: http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

Kristjan, I've got a screener copy of that series in my DVD drive right this instant, and will probably put up a review tomorrow. It is excellent so far. It goes beyond rude to dismissive -- it does a great service in showing a nation where a great many do not believe and aren't hesitant about saying so, and where those same people are looking at those loony Americans and wondering what the heck is wrong with them.

I went through these comments and am quite disappointed to see one personal attack after another.

Hey all you "scientists", here's a novel thought: lets debate the data and/or the arguments instead of sliming the people.

What could be an interesting and educational debate about the nature of one's beliefs instead turns out into interactive rant on B.O.

Disappointing. Truly.

That being said, I'll try a shift to a more productive discussion:

Seems to me the difference between and Atheist and a Theist is that the Theist believes the universe was created with a purpose, while the Atheist believes that the Universe has no purpose other than to simply exist.

Thoughts?

Sounds like I need to get hold of a copy. Is it a BBC series?

Seems to me the difference between and Atheist and a Theist is that the Theist believes the universe was created with a purpose, while the Atheist believes that the Universe has no purpose other than to simply exist.

There are a few other fundamental differences - for example one group believes in god(s) while the other doesn't. And you can be a theist without believing that the universe has a purpose - several religions allow for this.

I'd kind of like to know how B.O'REilly got his hands on "almost all" of the letters of our Founding Fathers.

Yeah, kinda reminds me of the 'Taco Liberty Bell' April Fools' joke some time back.
10 bucks says the Library of Congress' librarians/documenters probably ran off to check (if any of them bothered to watch, that is).

Peter Kay wrote:

Seems to me the difference between and Atheist and a Theist is that the Theist believes the universe was created with a purpose, while the Atheist believes that the Universe has no purpose other than to simply exist.
Thoughts?

Does God have a purpose? I don't mean "does God have purposes?" -- after all, we humans are perfectly capable of having purposes, goals, and intentions, and if God exists and has some sort of mind or consciousness, presumably it could also find experiences meaningful and fulfilling, from its own perspective.

But does God itself have some sort of cosmic reason for being, some point or meaning to it -- or does it simply exist for no reason, fulfilling no goal or plan?

Who or what gives God its meaning? What's its purpose?

Certain religious people are very good at claiming that the existence of God gives life "purpose," but when pushed to define that purpose, can at best come up with some vague, lame, and circular response such as "to be with God."

O'Reilly, quoted in comment

"it takes more faith to be an atheist"

It's amazing how often you hear this self-contradictory argument. If atheism requires more faith, then atheists are to be admired for having such conviction, right?

Or is the other way around? Religious people are conceding that evidence and logic form the gold standards of belief and that mere personal conviction comes in a very weak runner up--in which case, it's amazing they get so touchy when non-believers say "Fine, where's your evidence." It sounds like they too are suspicious of unsupported claims.

Is faith a good thing or a bad thing? It seems that atheists by and large would agree that faith is always inferior to a rigorous justification. But believers are strangely ambivalent about the whole thing. Are you supposed to admire people for their great faith or consider them gullible?

It was interesting to watch B.O. on the Hitler question. First saying he was a confirmed atheist(which I really doubt) then saying he was raised in the RCC(which is true). He said he didn't get a moral foundation. With his argument it's hard to lay that at the feet of atheism either way as the 'moral' foundation he was given as a child came from the RCC.

Hitler was and is to this day a member of the RCC. It is simply the truth.

For those who don't want to wait for PBS, Google video has "A Brief History of Disbelief"--all 3 parts by Jonathon Miller. Video quality is not brilliant as it's in approx half screen. Dawkins unsurprisingly is a major interviewee.

Thanks for posting the Felafel man above PZ: (from your Antipodean guests)--I guess we 'misunderestimated' the Youtube phenomena, that "series of tubes" called the 'InterTubes' right?

A master, RD. and a novice, BOy, set down for a match. BOy tried the old Hitler, Stalin, Mao... opening. The master began an effective dismantling of the setup so BOy kicked the table over with a bombast gambit. Game forfeit.

PaulC wrote:

Is faith a good thing or a bad thing? It seems that atheists by and large would agree that faith is always inferior to a rigorous justification. But believers are strangely ambivalent about the whole thing. Are you supposed to admire people for their great faith or consider them gullible?

Good point. I think the reason theists seem to show this strange division on the value of having "faith" is that the concept of faith contains the idea that one believes because one wants something to be true. Despite their tendency to equivocate between various meanings of what it means to have "faith" in something (trust, confidence, provisional assent or assumption), nobody would say, for instance, that a mother who finds out that her soldier son was not killed in Iraq as mistakenly reported has lost her "faith" in her son's death.

By saying that it takes "more faith to be an atheist" O'Reilly (and others) are saying that only someone who really doesn't want to believe will deliberately miss the not-so-subtle little clues God leaves for the nice people to pick up on.

I find it interesting that the the example offered in the comments of theism vs atheism, when boiling the argument down to a bullet-point format that can be used to perjoratively eyeball the people the commenter isn't is about purpose or no purpose. The purpose of the world of the Christian god was to praise him, and it couldn't get that right. So it's god, wanking. Sounds really thrilling to me.

Ultimately, atheism isn't necessarily about proactively desiring a world where there's no purpose. It's observing that there's no proof for something, so why bother believing it?

If tomorrow, someone produced conclusive, absolute, factual proof of deism, someone proved in a way that wasn't just an easy debunk by Randi and took away the prize, I daresay PZ Meyers' reaction would not be the classic, science-fiction style: "My life is a Lie!", but instead would be the much more real reaction of a scientist: "Wow! I wonder how that works?"

So Bill pulls out the "Hitler was an Atheist" and the "It couldn't have happened by chance" arguments.

It's like these guys are all reading from the same script.

Sastra:

By saying that it takes "more faith to be an atheist" O'Reilly (and others) are saying that only someone who really doesn't want to believe will deliberately miss the not-so-subtle little clues God leaves for the nice people to pick up on.

I think you're giving O'Reilly too much credit, but even this explanation doesn't improve things. In your interpretation, believers are saying that common sense leads to a recognition of God and that non-believers practice a sort of bullheaded denial of common sense. But if faith is supposed to be good, then how does it help your case to equate it with mere stubbornness? And if the existence of God is evident, then why is faith supposed to be an important virtue?

Actually, I do have a kind of faith that even when things seem kind of spooky, there is some reasonable explanation to what's going on. I could say I'm just acknowledging the fallibility of my perception and applying a form of scientific induction: over time, things tend to get explained, so the latest mysterious thing will get explained too. I don't really feel the need to cast it that way, though. While I think faith is inferior to a rigorous justification, it's also clear to me that I'm not always going have a rigorous justification and I still have to get on with my life.

Well, I recorded it last night and just finished watching it. First of all, thank FSM for fast forward! Second, what a waste of time.

I thought the point of interview shows was to have guests on and ask them questions to elicit answers and elucidate their point of view. If I wasn't already aware of Dawkins's point of view, I'd still be in the dark. O'Reilly seemed clearly more focused on getting his own uninteresting point of view across than exploring his guests. He repeatedly interrupted him and cut him off. Even worse, he showed absolutely no indication of having read Dawkins's book, in which Dawkins had already refuted all of O'Reilly's facile arguments. Rather than critiquing or rebutting Dawkins's arguments, he simply ignored them.

O'Reilly is a boor and a bore. Thanks for making me watch this drivel. There's another five minutes I'll never get back. :-)

Seems to me the difference between and Atheist and a Theist is that the Theist believes the universe was created with a purpose, while the Atheist believes that the Universe has no purpose other than to simply exist.
Thoughts?

Atheists believe God does not exist. End of story. No God.

Maybe the better question is: why did we humans invent a non-existent God to give our lives purpose?

I'm not all that interested in watching it, but I played the first thirty seconds or so at work with the sound off for kicks. Did anybody else find it hilarious that one of their captions for Dawkins was his name and "ATHEIST" in huge letters atop it? With a red background? He's big and scary and evil!

PaulC said in #63:

Religious people are conceding that evidence and logic form the gold standards of belief and that mere personal conviction comes in a very weak runner up--in which case, it's amazing they get so touchy when non-believers say "Fine, where's your evidence." It sounds like they too are suspicious of unsupported claims.

It's that cognitive dissonance thing. Most theists (I expect) don't place much faith in faith in everyday affairs (those that do are the truly gullible 'marks' that conmen live for). Just think of the justice system - the accused must be proven guilty. Ask them why and I'm sure their responses will include the same kind of reasoning that atheists use to reject faith. Of course they're 'suspicious of unsupported claims'; it's the natural state to be in for anyone who has a lifetime of experience. They only get touchy when their hypocracy is pointed out.

"So Bill pulls out the "Hitler was an Atheist" and the "It couldn't have happened by chance" arguments.

It's like these guys are all reading from the same script."

You mean there IS another script?

"So Bill pulls out the "Hitler was an Atheist" and the "It couldn't have happened by chance" arguments.

It's like these guys are all reading from the same script."

And I did a blog on it: If Hitler was an atheist...

Yep, it's the same script used by Ann Coulter, Rick Warren and so many others who are swiftboating atheists.

B.O. is desperate to be accepted as part of the intellectual/cultural "elite" he pretends to despise. That's why he reigned in the thuggery with Dawkins. He imagines that it was a dazzling, brainy repartee where he held his own with a real-live intellectual.

Back to working on my novel about using pipettes to hunt down the editorial board of an elitist and clubby scientific press.

ha.. reined in. what kind of slip is that?

If you've never seen O'Reilly at his worst or were disappointed that he didn't get worked up with Dawkins, then you can satisfy your voyeuristic urge by viewing his vein-popping one-on-one with Geraldo Rivera.

I have a theory about the real reason people ascribe to religion, and it's not because God is the "all-loving creator" or because they like the idea or anything like that. The real reason is possibly the most selfish one I can think of. It's also why religious people get so up-in-arms if you criticize their beliefs.

It's because they think that they're immortal. Forget the jargon about souls and sins and sacrifice and heaven; they think that they will live forever, as they are. A person who thinks they're immortal is bound to get upset if you tell them they really aren't. It's an almost oedipal denial, that the worst thing you could possibly imagine being true might be true. If they accepted it, so they think, they would have to gouge out their eyes in shame, or worse. Even considering the idea might somehow void their immortality. That's where all these elaborate denial mechanisms arise from, the king of them being theology.

'B.O. is desperate to be accepted as part of the intellectual/cultural "elite" he pretends to despise. That's why he reigned in the thuggery with Dawkins. He imagines that it was a dazzling, brainy repartee where he held his own with a real-live intellectual.'

Absolutely and well put.

So Mr O'Reilly understands the 'physiology' of tides and sunrises. Whole new discipline there.

I just love the i`m with jesus and the bible,if i`m right I go to heaven and live forever if i`m wrong I lose nothing,so thats why I beleive.I thought the big guy knows all sees all?He don`t know half-assed when he sees it?I wonder if bill-o knows he would be a half-assed muslim if he was from the middle east?What a wanker!

I thought Richard handled himself well and was able to make a few points during the few moments when bloviating Bill-o took a breath. The most interesting comments all came from Bill-o. At one point he said he wasn't sure that Jesus was the son of god!! And in other comments he said he was a "believer" because it made him "feel good" and because science didn't have all the answers. Hardly what I would call ringing endorsments.

So Mr O'Reilly understands the 'physiology' of tides and sunrises. Whole new discipline there.

Don't laugh. America's Obesity Epidemic is far more serious than you realize.