Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

[Fonz]

Then why do all the libs go nuts when a politician says "God" in a speech?

It depends on what the speech is about. But It seems pretty childish for someone like the leader of the free world to make references to an imaginary sky fairy, especially when talking about real serious issues.

 

[Fonz]

Read my post. I believe I said that.

yeah its called agreeing with you.

 

[Fonz]

I agree. As much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly he made some excellent points here. He isn't saying that Dawkins is wrong; he's saying that Dawkins' statement that he is wrong (which is in the book in case you were wondering) is a double standard because atheism is currently as unproven as the existence of God. You can't prove one way or the other and until then it's a matter of which you have more faith in: religion or science. Personally I'd lean more towards science because I think someday, through scientific means, we will be able to answer that debate once and for all. For now, though, O'Reilly was just requesting that Dawkins respect his views.

Do you even know what Atheism is? Atheism isn't a belief in something. Its simply the refusal to believe in nonsense for no good reason. You can't say that Atheism is unproven, because it has nothing to prove. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming that a magical invisible man is floating in the sky somewhere.

I see no reason to respect nonsensical beliefs. Someone with faith in a personal God shouldn't be treated any differently than someone who advocates that the world is flat. In neither case do these unjustified or unjustifiable beliefs deserve respect.

 

[The_Giver]

Fonz, it's just too bad that religious people basically run this country--it is just impossible to run the country without letting your faith influence your political actions.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

It depends on what the speech is about. But It seems pretty childish for someone like the leader of the free world to make references to an imaginary sky fairy, especially when talking about real serious issues.

Well the Creator is relevant to just about any speech concerning civil rights, sovereignty, or government.

 

[Fonz]

Well the Creator is relevant to just about any speech concerning civil rights, sovereignty, or government.

What does that mean?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What does that mean?

It means exactly what I said. Go back and read my posts in this thread. They're not long. Then you'll see.

 

[Fonz]

It means exactly what I said. Go back and read my posts in this thread. They're not long. Then you'll see.

It was actually a challenge for you to describe how a "creator" has anything to do with any of those things.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

It was actually a challenge for you to describe how a "creator" has anything to do with any of those things.

Are you serious? I've explained it all throughout this thread.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Then why do all the libs go nuts when a politician says "God" in a speech?

they do?

since when?

 

[Fonz]

Are you serious? I've explained it all throughout this thread.

indeed I thought you were talking about something else. excuse me.

 

[vyo476]

Do you even know what Atheism is? Atheism isn't a belief in something. Its simply the refusal to believe in nonsense for no good reason. You can't say that Atheism is unproven, because it has nothing to prove. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming that a magical invisible man is floating in the sky somewhere.

I see no reason to respect nonsensical beliefs. Someone with faith in a personal God shouldn't be treated any differently than someone who advocates that the world is flat. In neither case do these unjustified or unjustifiable beliefs deserve respect.

People who believe in religions believe in something. The statement "I don't believe in God or any religion" begs the question, "Well, what do you believe?" There is no "burden of proof" in that question - you just have to state what you believe in (and don't say you don't have an opinion - if you don't have an opinion on the matter than you haven't really thought about it and therefore don't deserve to belittle those who have faith in a higher power). It's what comes next that's the trick. Let's say that, as an Atheist, you believe in the Big Bang. You cannot fully prove that the Big Bang happened; there's partial evidence, sure, but the statement that you believe it involves an act of faith in regards to the unknown variables (of which there are quite a few).

Beliefs don't necessarily have anything to do with sense. By the standards of the Medieval period, it was partially provable that the Earth was flat - until Columbus and Magellan and others that I'm forgetting found a way to prove 100% otherwise. By today's standards, the Big Bang is partially provable - but a few hundred years down the road someone could potentially prove that we're 100% wrong about that, too.

I consider myself to be an agnostic. I'm skeptical about the existence of God (in any form) but I also recognize that there is a possibility. I've always found atheism to be very close-minded because they reject fully the concept of God for the same reasons agnostics are skeptical about it -we're just willing to admit that since no one can prove otherwise there is still the possibility that God exists.

 

[God]

Well, here I am... try disproving THIS!


Seriously folks, I eat atheist like Dawkins for breakfast.

 

[Fonz]

Well, here I am... try disproving THIS!


Seriously folks, I eat atheist like Dawkins for breakfast.

Did he give you heart burn?

 

[God]

Yeah, even God can't take all his BS... I mean, to believe in some higher being is just way more rational, you can't disprove it so you might as well. It can't hurt you, on the other hand, if you don't workship me you GO TO HELL!