Next Monday: Dawkins v O'Reilly

Vaporous · Post by **Vaporous** » 2007-04-23 08:38pm

Interview has come and gone, and while Bill-o kept his temper, he did indulge in his second favorite activity- yapping. O'Reilly talked for so long and asked Dawkins so little that its hard to call it an interview.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2007-04-23 08:45pm

Right off the bat, O'Reilly said it took more faith to be an atheist than it did to believe... and with that, a disjointed reposting of my real-time reaction in the chatroom:

I Armored Corps (7:30:44 PM): Dawkins is characteristically unflappable
I Armored Corps (7:30:57 PM): although... yeah, that was a pointless concession... perhaps not // (humility is a Christian virtue to which Dawkins just meekly agreed to)
I Armored Corps (7:31:07 PM): he's opting for a somewhat non-confrontational approach
steeleffigy (7:31:16 PM): hahaha
steeleffigy (7:31:24 PM): he's following my idea of orly digging his own hole
I Armored Corps (7:31:29 PM): insane can and cannot prove and disprove comparisons
I Armored Corps (7:31:45 PM): atheist = worst mass murders Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot
I Armored Corps (7:31:46 PM): *roll*
scifinutty234 (7:31:52 PM): hilter was not an athelist
I Armored Corps (7:31:54 PM): can't that just DIE?!
Einhander Sn0m4n (7:31:57 PM): Hitler was Christian
I Armored Corps (7:32:00 PM): quit kicking dead horses!?
steeleffigy (7:32:10 PM): catholic, actually
I Armored Corps (7:32:13 PM): good, he threw the founding fathers back in his face
steeleffigy (7:32:21 PM): didn't the pope visit him for his birthday once or twice

I Armored Corps (7:33:21 PM): terrifically short *sigh*
I Armored Corps (7:33:48 PM): O'Reilly simply dredged up every canned-anti-atheist argument and Dawkins had very little time and few words in edgewise for offense
steeleffigy (7:34:51 PM): ah, the novice's approach of "random bombardment"
Einhander Sn0m4n (7:34:53 PM): ah yes, the 'shotgun stuffed fulla rusty nails' attack
I Armored Corps (7:35:31 PM): that is precisely what it was

I Armored Corps (7:35:56 PM): and of course, knowing O'Reilly's core audience, preaching to the choir as much as he did meant he steered the debate
Einhander Sn0m4n (7:36:06 PM): yup
I Armored Corps (7:36:07 PM): not a disaster, but as I feared I think, utterly worthless

To rephrase those last parts, with respect to reaching the ears of a non-like-minded audience, Dawkins failed because of the machine-gun, canned-argument approach O'Reilly opted for.

Put another way, I don't believe Dawkins could've gotten through to O'Reilly's audience cause there was simply no time to coherently define his own position, he threw jabs here and there to counter O'Reilly's claims, but by and large Dawkins was firefighting Bill-O's attempt to negatively define us. In my opinion, worthless as an attempt at persuasion.

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2007-04-23 09:25pm

Yeah I was surprised that Mr. Dawkins didn't more thoroughly refute the Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheists argument O'Reilly made. Obviously there was not enough time as Falafal Bill did most of the talking.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-04-23 10:27pm

When can we expect a online video of the 'interview'? (using the term loosely given the reactions I've read so far).

Jack Bauer · Post by **Jack Bauer** » 2007-04-23 11:15pm

Bubble Boy wrote:When can we expect a online video of the 'interview'? (using the term loosely given the reactions I've read so far).

Ask and ye shall receive.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-04-23 11:33pm

Jack Bauer wrote:Ask and ye shall receive.

He sure didn't let Dawkins say much, did he? Very much like a preaching session, although what responses and answers Dawkins did manage to get in I found were good.

Tricit · Post by **Tricit** » 2007-04-24 12:04am

I listen to CNNs and O'Reilly's and I must say, O'Reilly's was less unpleasant. I doubt I will ever say that about the O'Reilly factor again, but that is just how I compare the two. Those two assholes on the panel for CNN... it's as if they didn't see the videos that prefaced their panel discussion. That first one kept saying, "Atheists should just shut up." Those people were speaking out how people kept ostracizing them for being atheist. I have no idea what was going on in her head, but I sure as fuck associated it with what I imagine Hitler was thinking.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-04-24 12:23am

It was a push. Dawkins didn't "win", but O'Really couldn't be his usual asshole self and simply harangue Dawkins without looking like a complete imbecile so he ends up doing little more than preaching to his choir and rather dully at that. Bit pointless on both sides, from my perspective.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2007-04-24 12:36am

I was somewhat disappointed. The interview was far, far too short. It seems that, whenever he's on, they never give him any realistic time to discuss anything, yet when people like Anne Coulter are on, they have a lot more time.

Perhaps it's just selecting thinking. I don't know. I am just disappointed with what I perceive as the weight of time they give to some people.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-04-24 01:35am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:I was somewhat disappointed. The interview was far, far too short. It seems that, whenever he's on, they never give him any realistic time to discuss anything, yet when people like Anne Coulter are on, they have a lot more time.

Of course they do. The longer someone like Dawkins is on, the greater chance he has at making relatively intelligent viewers seriously reconsider their beliefs and positions. Or, as people like O'Reilly would put it: "infecting people with immoral ways and thinking".

Hence, the rapid talking on O'Reilly's part and limited response time given to Dawkins, and then the predictable "Well, shucks, that's all the time we have for now. Thank you Dawkins for not saying too much over my rambling."

Post by **Dalton** » 2007-04-24 01:55am

Nothing important ever gets fully discussed or explored on this sort of heavily biased personality show.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2007-04-24 03:25am

That "interview" was so ridiculous it had me giggling uncontrollably by the end. Every single thought was compressed and truncated, and nothing got properly discussed. How the hell can you discuss such a big issue in so little time?

And why does anybody watch this? Do they just like hearing people talk about complicated things in simple terms so fast that they don't have time to think about what they're hearing? I used to think that Japan produced the weirdest shit on TV, but this beats anything they've come up with.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2007-04-24 10:39am

sketerpot wrote:And why does anybody watch this? Do they just like hearing people talk about complicated things in simple terms so fast that they don't have time to think about what they're hearing? I used to think that Japan produced the weirdest shit on TV, but this beats anything they've come up with.

It's Fox. Their audience doesn't have the attention span to follow a reasoned argument, let alone the wit to understand it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2007-04-24 11:15am

Any televised debates like this are fruitless. Now, if this was Hard Talk which is a half-hour of debate with one key guest, then you'll see what it's really like. As O'Really's FOX segment and CNN's equivalent go, they're pretty poor at making anything but soundbite arguments which are hollow.

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2007-04-24 12:41pm

I'm just surprised Dawkins didn't point out Mein Kampf when O'Reilly tried to call Hitler an atheist. He did correct him, but O'Reilly was able to make it seem as if Hitler's religious ideas were in dispute, and that just fuels the "evilest person in history was an atheist" rhetoric.

TithonusSyndrome · Post by **TithonusSyndrome** » 2007-04-24 12:54pm

Does anyone still think that this debacle could've swayed any fencesitters? O'Lielly set him up and knocked him down.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-04-24 12:56pm

He didn't really knock him down, he just didn't give him a chance to say anything. What O'Reilly needs is to be somehow forced to debate in a venue where he doesn't wield absolute power, because he has shown many times that he has absolutely no restraint with that power. There are interviewers out there who can be trusted to give their opponents enough time to make their case, but O'Reilly is not one of them.

Having said that, O'Reilly demonstrated the weakness of Dawkins' calm measured approach: you have to be at least somewhat confrontational if you're going to get a word in edgewise with that prick. When you get the floor, keep talking non-stop until he cuts you off. You can't raise your voice because of the "style over substance" nature of the venue, but you can keep talking until at least a couple of seconds after he barges in, so it's obvious that O'Reilly is muzzling you. If you sit there politely smiling while he does that, then you accomplish jack shit.

Of course, I could just be saying that because of my own particular style, which is in-your-face confrontational. I imagine something in-between those two extremes would best fit this kind of scenario, although truth be told, the verbal debate has always been a circus and will always be a circus. Written debates are where intelligent people discuss issues.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-04-24 04:58pm

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Does anyone still think that this debacle could've swayed any fencesitters? O'Lielly set him up and knocked him down.

O'Reilly did not knock Dawkin's down, and Dawkin's is getting better responding to theist arguments. I felt he did alright, but I agree he needs to start being more aggressive. I would have bitch slapped O'Reilly when he brought up the old "You need more faith than I do" nonsense.

TithonusSyndrome · Post by **TithonusSyndrome** » 2007-04-24 05:24pm

I guess it was misleading to say that he "knocked" Dawkins down, but he did make him look like he had nothing of import to say and trumpeted himself as ostentatiously as the camera would allow. Most Joe Sixpack fencesitters wouldn't have been convinced of anything on Dawkins' scant testimony.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2007-04-24 08:02pm

Even if Dawkins pulled a Darwin's Bulldog impression on O'Really, it wouldn't have mattered with the way the show and its cretin of a host is run. It's a short, soundbite laden crapfest where the more style-over-substance you can get, the better your ratings. Like the majority of FOX viewers would even entertain the notion of Dawkins having a point. It's like having PETA invite a vivisectionist on a prime-time show to debate animal rights.

One cannot sway a fundie with written arguments, so speaking your mind with heathenistic intent won't work either. You'd sooner convert Bush and Cheney to socialism in a White House press conference.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-04-24 08:33pm

That hurt to watch. O'Reilly is so fucking ignorant he radiates a high-energy stupidity field that even dumbed the shit out of Richard Dawkins.

"God did it" isn't actually an explanation for anything. It's not easier to believe because it's of no substance whatsoever, and only raises more questions than it answers.

Hitler and Stalin were both Christian, or at the very least exploited the faith to secure their dictatorships. Saying bad stuff about Jesus does not make you an atheist. I think that even though O'Reilly openly acknowledged the existence of other religions, he's still subconciously convinced that religion = The Shitty Three.

Mao Zedong and Pol Pot didn't do what they did because of their religion. You cannot say the same for the Crusaders or the Jihadists, whose crimes are specifically condoned and encouraged in their holy books. Atheism says nothing about morality, and its association with Stalinism is purely circumstantial.

I'd love to know how religion is acting as a "mediating force" in Iraq right now.

You can, in fact, disprove concepts that are internally self-contradictory. Disproving Yahweh is an exercise in logic, no tougher than disproving the idea of square circles. The Bible is actually very falsifiable.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-04-24 08:41pm

TithonusSyndrome wrote:I guess it was misleading to say that he "knocked" Dawkins down, but he did make him look like he had nothing of import to say and trumpeted himself as ostentatiously as the camera would allow. Most Joe Sixpack fencesitters wouldn't have been convinced of anything on Dawkins' scant testimony.

Then those people are idiots. If someone can't rationalize why it is illogical to invent the idea of god just because science answers "I don't know" to questions that we don't have evidence to make a conclusion for then there's probably very little that could be done for them.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2007-04-24 09:30pm

I have to disagree with most here. I thought Dawkins did very well on the segment. He was able to condense most of his standard rebuttals into soundbite form, which scientists typically have trouble doing. You can't conclusively beat down O'Reiley on his own show because he won't let you, but if you can cram intelligent arguments into a few sentences, you can at least pique the curiosity of intelligent but uniformed viewers who don't know any better than to watch O'Reiley.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-04-24 10:07pm

Are there really any intelligent people who watch Bill O'Reilly and who would be intellectually curious enough to investigate atheism based on anything Dawkins said? The median age of his audience is 71, for fuck's sake. They're virtually fossilized.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-04-24 10:18pm

^^Was that hyperbole, or were you being serious?