Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[skeptifem]

Dawkins isn't a great debater in person or a great public speaker for that matter. His book was great, however he's not quite as quick on his feet as he could be. If he were quicker and more eloquent and articulate he would of hammered O'Reilly. However he didn't do terrible. He did a respectable Job in the interview.

huh? I think he pretty much always does a great job of public speaking.


anyway, orielly clearly was trying to blab the time away in an effort to keep dawkins from talking. i was dissapointed. howard stern gets a three part series interview and dawkins gets 4 minutes and some change.

 

[wahrheit]

I'd like to second the posts saying that Dawkins in fact is a great speaker and debater.

My impression was that he did very, very well, considering he was speaking to a jerk like O'Reilly in a short 3 minute something segment.

O'Reilly never could continue such a conversation with Dawkins for more than 5 minutes. And he knows this perfectly well. Dawkins, on the other hand, would not fall apart after 5 minutes of O'Reilly's blather (i.e. lame old "arguments" against atheism which we've all heard a million times before).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That is agnositicsm - not materialistic atheism. I have no disagreement with agnostics since they're just throwing their hands up in the air saying "Dunno! And maybe we never will!".

Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact.

Even a materialistic atheist can say "I don't know". Committing oneself to a methaphysical position only commits oneself to the position, not to all knowledge within that position. A materialistic atheist can also assume the position of "Dunno and maybe we never will", even if that person believes that there may be a perfectly physical answer to all questions.

 

[joobz]

Even a materialistic atheist can say "I don't know". Committing oneself to a methaphysical position only commits oneself to the position, not to all knowledge within that position. A materialistic atheist can also assume the position of "Dunno and maybe we never will", even if that person believes that there may be a perfectly physical answer to all questions.

At least materialism is a defensible position, not like all the dualists out there!


---sorry, I was channeling Hammejk. I actually miss his posts. Although, i had heard he went a bit angry near the end....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, me too. I wish he could come back, even as curmudgeonly as he was at times I enjoyed his perspective.

 

[Solus]

Typical O'Reilly, I loved how he made light of the Apollo comment added in there. I used to like O'Reilly when I was much younger, it looks like Dawkins wasn't prepared to properly deal with billy. Still considering the circumstances Dawkins didn't do too badly.

 

[skeptifem]

Sadly true. I saw a debate once in which the biologist utterly destroyed the creationist from any academic point of view, but the largely creationist audience still felt the creationist had won. They just loved it when the creationist made the "point" that "A chimp and a human have 98% identical DNA. Well a water melon is 98% water so it missed being a cloud by just 2%".

i saw something on a christian network once, they said that two men were going to 'debate god'. they got a biologist, obviously its going to be about evolution, right? wrong. they grilled him about every other aspect of biblical history as though it was fair. a complete sham.

 

[joobz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89GcKtbS4xk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BPQ3uvn1n4&NR=1

=)

It's very irritating though.

the show I heard was really edited. they only had her "exposing" his dependance on his parents and then went into that silly "ARe you smarter than these people game". yup, smart people believe in god, so it must be true.

 

[EvilSmurf]

Dawkins doesn't appear to be a very good off-the-cuff speaker. It appears he went in completely unprepared for a debate with O'Reilly, also he lacks something in the charisma department to debate O'Reilly.

I'd love to see O'Reilly try and debate the likes of Kenneth Miller or E. O. Wilson.

 

[qayak]

After watching the video several times, I get the impression that O'Reilly is scared of Dawkins. I think he had Dawkins on just so he could put it on his resume.

Dawkins did a good job of keeping his anger in check. You can see he expected a lot more from O'Reilly. Unfortunately, O'Reilly had nothing except a deep desire to protect his ratings. "Can't let the right wing wackos see me get eaten alive by Darwin's Pitbull so I'll just keep talking until the time is up!"

I never realized it was Jesus who was in charge of putting the universe into motion!

 

[bignickel]

That is agnositicsm - not materialistic atheism. I have no disagreement with agnostics since they're just throwing their hands up in the air saying "Dunno! And maybe we never will!".

Incorrect. Agnosticism means we can not know. The agnostic (who can be theist, but is most commonly a non-theist) says: "no matter evidence I see, it doesn't show that there is a god". Any number of explanations, in this universe, provide a better explanation of whatever is being witnessed, experienced, etc. Even aliens. Or hallucination.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

HypnoPsi, I'm not sure of your point.

Active disbelief in god you say? For my own part, I merely lack any good reason at all to believe in god, so I don't. That's all it is. I "don't know for sure" in the same way as not knowing about the ol' orbitting teapot. That's no reason to label the position as some sort of belief structure.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm throwing in with the FSM because he has answers for why Global warming is occurring where as science can't seem to make up it's mind and Jesus is silent on the matter. Less Scientists and Christians, More Pirates!

 

[HypnoPsi]

Even a materialistic atheist can say "I don't know". Committing oneself to a methaphysical position only commits oneself to the position, not to all knowledge within that position. A materialistic atheist can also assume the position of "Dunno and maybe we never will", even if that person believes that there may be a perfectly physical answer to all questions.

Fine, since you accept that materialistic atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, is the belief that a physical answer (of whatever variety) is more likely.

My point is simply that it is still a faith based metaphysic every bit as much as the belief in God.

If I were you, I would think carefully about the wisdom of replying by saying you think materialistic atheism is better because it's adherent's are somehow less convinced of their metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[joobz]

If I were you, I would think carefully about the wisdom of replying by saying you think materialistic atheism is better because it's adherent's are somehow less convinced of their metaphysic.

But then, are you trying to say that creating any set of imaginary structures are all equally relavent to eachother and to a materialistic view?

 

[HypnoPsi]

HypnoPsi, I'm not sure of your point.

Active disbelief in god you say? For my own part, I merely lack any good reason at all to believe in god, so I don't. That's all it is. I "don't know for sure" in the same way as not knowing about the ol' orbitting teapot. That's no reason to label the position as some sort of belief structure.

You're not sure of my point since I've not said that materialistic atheism is the active disbelief in God. I have said that materialistic atheism is the active belief that objective reality has a purely physical cause (of whatever flavour).

You will note I'm using the term materialistic atheism as opposed to just atheism (such as the type believed in by certain Buddhist sects).

-
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Fine, since you accept that materialistic atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, is the belief that a physical answer (of whatever variety) is more likely.

My point is simply that it is still a faith based metaphysic every bit as much as the belief in God.

If I were you, I would think carefully about the wisdom of replying by saying you think materialistic atheism is better because it's adherent's are somehow less convinced of their metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

What?

First of all, nowhere did I say that I think materialistic atheism is better. I said that your objection was wrong. Anyone can claim, regardless of their underlying metaphysic, not to know the ultimate answers. A materialist atheist may believe that all answers will have a material explanation, but that is not the same as saying that they know what the mechanisms underlying origins are. Those are separate issues and needn't imply a separate category of "agnostic" unless you want to put everyone in that category -- theists don't really know how God did it, atheists don't really know how material reality came into existence.

I'm not even sure what matter is, so I have no clue what "materialism" even means.

And there is a difference between they type of faith being discussed in materialistic atheism and theism. Materialist atheists can point to falsifiable information around them to support their claims. Theists cannot falsify God. There is no falsification of God.

So, the difference looks like this -- the materialist atheist says, "I trust reality" (that is his/her "faith") and the theist may or may not say "I trust reality" (though most do) and then add "I believe there is a reality beyond what I can see or otherwise experience and I have no direct falsifiable evidence to support it." Those are not equivalent statements.

 

[Moochie]

In another thread somewhere (in the PCE forum, I think), there is a discussion about "who is the left's equivalent of BOR?" Some mention Jon Stewart.

While there are many reasons to disagree, Brown's comment is a big one for me. I have found that whenever I see Stewart talk to someone about a book, he acts like he has at least read the book, often bringing up some point that is discussed within. OReilly can be transparent in that he has NOT read the book he is discussing, and totally argues the strawman version of it.

Oh come on! The Bill doesn't read books! He has his people read books for him.

M.

 

[HypnoPsi]

But then, are you trying to say that creating any set of imaginary structures are all equally relavent to eachother and to a materialistic view?

No - but what's imaginary? That there is some wonderful substance/s underlying reality that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinite/eternal or that there is one supreme consciousness (or perhaps even an infinite number of equal consciousnesses behind reality)?

And are matter and consciousness really separate anyway? Certain branches of monism suggest they are ultimately the same thing.

My choice is to study and investigate consciousness and see where that leads us. Others, the religious among us, choose a whole package of beliefs. That's their choice and faith. Materialists think physics alone can probably explain objective reality and consciousness and that is their choice and faith based metaphysic.

Marvel at the mystery!

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Moochie]

And in case you're wondering...here's an example of Laura Ingraham's level of thought. (though be warned, it does come from the Daily Show)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkMI5t6WVMs&mode=related&search=

There wasn't any need for the warning -- Stewart was only showing a clip from the Fox news network, on which this moron (Ingraham) appears frequently, along with the inimitable Ann Coulter.

IMO, it ought to be called the Fox Moron Network.

M.