Feel like getting really really angry? Watch this!

[Atheist-Lite]

Except Dawkins is hardly controversial - especially in the book he is currently flogging. O'Reilly on the other hand is an ignoramus dickhead

[Hermit]

I really don't understand why he goes on shows like these. Why bother?

He has a new book to sell. O'Reilly helped him publicise it. Authors have been doing the show circuits for decades in order to sell their latest publications. Even with hosts who don't like them. No such thing as bad publicity.

As to the thread title, O'Reilly makes me laugh, and I admire Dawkins for his resolve to soldier on.

[borealis]

Dawkins handled that pretty well, it's not easy to be interviewed by a conservative deluded religious bigot with no manners.

O'Reilly...


My favourite O'Reilly clip is the one where he got owned by a kid

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Exi5tentialist]

In many ways I think the problem here is that Dawkins and O'Reilly are too alike, and much what they both say is true. Dawkins is, as O'Reilly says, on a crusade to convince believers that they are idiots. This message is a cornerstone of New Atheism and it is impossible to deny it. Look at this thread:-

klr - "plonker"
Gallstones - "fucking igonorant"
Faithfree - "dick"
anna09 - "fox idiots"
Rum - "dickhead"
Borealis - "deluded religious bigot"

And, worst of all:-

Crumple - "American audience"

The constant message is that having any religious belief is a sign of low intelligence, and low intelligence should be insulted. Therefore with his opening question to Dawkins, O'Reilly very shrewdly hit the nail bang on the head. That's why the interview was filled with tension right from the start and it's the kind of tension that gives O'Reilly ratings. Dawkins should have just admitted it, but that would undermine his scientific message, so instead he feeds the tension by denying that his message is to paint religious believers as idiots, which a cursory glance at any of Dawkins's contribution to message boards makes quite obvious is his primary purpose in commenting on religion.

Perturbed by O'Reilly's to-the-point questioning, Dawkins starts making more mistakes, for example by claiming that everything in the natural world can be explained by science. It should have been fairly obvious before this point that he was not going to be allowed to offer any qualifications or parentheses to any statement he made, so he should already have started talking in watertight one-sentence arguments. The problem is he hasn't got any - he's too leaky with his own judeo-christian imperfections to acknowledge what is correct and what is incorrect. First, Dawkins's denial of the "idiots" hypothesis is loudly called by O'Reilly when he admits that he start of every chapter begins with a description of a myth - but O'Reilly wasn't just talking about the judeo-christian myth, he'd only referred to religion in general at this point so again Dawkins was on the back foot through having made a tactical blunder.

O'Reilly correctly states that the US was based on the judeo-christian myth (indeed, the whole of western civilisation is) which Dawkins immediately denies. This is the achilles heel of New Atheism - they think that becoming atheist, transforming ourselves into an atheist society, should be easy but they don't even begin to tackle the major philosophical, patriarchial assumptions that are christianity's legacies to our hierarchical structures, our legal system, our economy and our work ethic. For them, those things are nothing to do with atheism.

One of these legacies is the concept of evil, a concept that Dawkins has wholeheartedly and explicitly embraces in his descriptions of islam and other ways that he judges human beings, a description he voluntarily uses in the O'Reilly interview. He then makes another curious mistake by trying to claim a logical connection between religion and 'religious' dictators but drawing a distinction between the motivations of political despots and atheist despots. In the latter case, oppression was perpetrated in Dawkins's view by political factors but for some strange reason, political factors are to be put aside when the religious regime's motivations are being analysed and religion becomes the dominant driver of oppression.

Even in this short interview, many of Dawkins's philosophical flaws are exposed and I would suggest this the reason why his admirers find this style of interview annoying. O'Reilly is actually quite an incisive interviewer, I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw Richard Dawkins. Personally I wouldn't buy either of their books, but being two peas in the same pod I think they make a lovely couple.

[Pappa]

I wish I had access to Fox News.

[Atheist-Lite]

I wish I had access to Fox News.

I found some old Fox News progs on Youtube in their more weighty days.

[klr]

In many ways I think the problem here is that Dawkins and O'Reilly are too alike, and much what they both say is true. Dawkins is, as O'Reilly says, on a crusade to convince believers that they are idiots. This message is a cornerstone of New Atheism and it is impossible to deny it. Look at this thread:-

klr - "plonker"
Gallstones - "fucking igonorant"
Faithfree - "dick"
anna09 - "fox idiots"
Rum - "dickhead"
Borealis - "deluded religious bigot"

And, worst of all:-

Crumple - "American audience"

The constant message is that having any religious belief is a sign of low intelligence, and low intelligence should be insulted. Therefore with his opening question to Dawkins, O'Reilly very shrewdly hit the nail bang on the head. That's why the interview was filled with tension right from the start and it's the kind of tension that gives O'Reilly ratings. Dawkins should have just admitted it, but that would undermine his scientific message, so instead he feeds the tension by denying that his message is to paint religious believers as idiots, which a cursory glance at any of Dawkins's contribution to message boards makes quite obvious is his primary purpose in commenting on religion.

Perturbed by O'Reilly's to-the-point questioning, Dawkins starts making more mistakes, for example by claiming that everything in the natural world can be explained by science. It should have been fairly obvious before this point that he was not going to be allowed to offer any qualifications or parentheses to any statement he made, so he should already have started talking in watertight one-sentence arguments. The problem is he hasn't got any - he's too leaky with his own judeo-christian imperfections to acknowledge what is correct and what is incorrect. First, Dawkins's denial of the "idiots" hypothesis is loudly called by O'Reilly when he admits that he start of every chapter begins with a description of a myth - but O'Reilly wasn't just talking about the judeo-christian myth, he'd only referred to religion in general at this point so again Dawkins was on the back foot through having made a tactical blunder.

O'Reilly correctly states that the US was based on the judeo-christian myth (indeed, the whole of western civilisation is) which Dawkins immediately denies. This is the achilles heel of New Atheism - they think that becoming atheist, transforming ourselves into an atheist society, should be easy but they don't even begin to tackle the major philosophical, patriarchial assumptions that are christianity's legacies to our hierarchical structures, our legal system, our economy and our work ethic. For them, those things are nothing to do with atheism.

One of these legacies is the concept of evil, a concept that Dawkins has wholeheartedly and explicitly embraces in his descriptions of islam and other ways that he judges human beings, a description he voluntarily uses in the O'Reilly interview. He then makes another curious mistake by trying to claim a logical connection between religion and 'religious' dictators but drawing a distinction between the motivations of political despots and atheist despots. In the latter case, oppression was perpetrated in Dawkins's view by political factors but for some strange reason, political factors are to be put aside when the religious regime's motivations are being analysed and religion becomes the dominant driver of oppression.

Even in this short interview, many of Dawkins's philosophical flaws are exposed and I would suggest this the reason why his admirers find this style of interview annoying. O'Reilly is actually quite an incisive interviewer, I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw Richard Dawkins. Personally I wouldn't buy either of their books, but being two peas in the same pod I think they make a lovely couple.

Even if I knew nothing at all about O'Reilly, I'd still have panned him based on his bombast, rudeness and ignorance. If O'Reilly is "incisive" then God (!) help the art of TV interviews.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

RD: We don't want to turn this into a shouting match.
BO: WHO'S SHOUTING!!!!

[Ronja]

O'Reilly correctly states that the US was based on the judeo-christian myth (indeed, the whole of western civilisation is)

Sorry, but for the most northern parts of Europe that is not the whole truth. Christianity never really managed to infiltrate the whole population thoroughly, especially not the peasants/small farmers: the old Norse and other pagan gods/demigods, heroes and nature spirits were openly believed in all through the week, even though people went to church on Sundays. My own maternal grandmother, whose mother was a self-learned herbal healer, midwife and "veterinarian" for their village, believed in the water spirit "Näkki" and would not go near running water ever, and not let us either, not even close to a small brook.

The last shaman/warlock who was executed for blasphemy died in 1708 in Lapland. But the old Sami religion certainly did not die with him.

Those old religions (Norse, Sami and Finnic) did not have an epic battle between good and evil at their core - the myths are more subtle and nuanced than that. And the gods (plural) were either so grand as to be pretty much beyond human interaction (Thor/Ukko = thunder) or so close and everyday that you could supposedly influence them by offerings and special rites (the fertility of the land, animals and people were central to many of these).

AFAIK the more remote parts of Scotland have a similar history regarding "witchcraft" as Finland, Sweden and Norway.

So claiming that the whole of western civilization is based on one (type of) myth is an exaggeration at best.

[Gallstones]

In many ways I think the problem here is that Dawkins and O'Reilly are too alike, and much what they both say is true. Dawkins is, as O'Reilly says, on a crusade to convince believers that they are idiots. This message is a cornerstone of New Atheism and it is impossible to deny it. Look at this thread:-

klr - "plonker"
Gallstones - "fucking igonorant"
Faithfree - "dick"
anna09 - "fox idiots"
Rum - "dickhead"
Borealis - "deluded religious bigot"

And, worst of all:-

Crumple - "American audience"

The constant message is that having any religious belief is a sign of low intelligence, and low intelligence should be insulted. Therefore with his opening question to Dawkins, O'Reilly very shrewdly hit the nail bang on the head. That's why the interview was filled with tension right from the start and it's the kind of tension that gives O'Reilly ratings. Dawkins should have just admitted it, but that would undermine his scientific message, so instead he feeds the tension by denying that his message is to paint religious believers as idiots, which a cursory glance at any of Dawkins's contribution to message boards makes quite obvious is his primary purpose in commenting on religion.

Perturbed by O'Reilly's to-the-point questioning, Dawkins starts making more mistakes, for example by claiming that everything in the natural world can be explained by science. It should have been fairly obvious before this point that he was not going to be allowed to offer any qualifications or parentheses to any statement he made, so he should already have started talking in watertight one-sentence arguments. The problem is he hasn't got any - he's too leaky with his own judeo-christian imperfections to acknowledge what is correct and what is incorrect. First, Dawkins's denial of the "idiots" hypothesis is loudly called by O'Reilly when he admits that he start of every chapter begins with a description of a myth - but O'Reilly wasn't just talking about the judeo-christian myth, he'd only referred to religion in general at this point so again Dawkins was on the back foot through having made a tactical blunder.

O'Reilly correctly states that the US was based on the judeo-christian myth (indeed, the whole of western civilisation is) which Dawkins immediately denies. This is the achilles heel of New Atheism - they think that becoming atheist, transforming ourselves into an atheist society, should be easy but they don't even begin to tackle the major philosophical, patriarchial assumptions that are christianity's legacies to our hierarchical structures, our legal system, our economy and our work ethic. For them, those things are nothing to do with atheism.

One of these legacies is the concept of evil, a concept that Dawkins has wholeheartedly and explicitly embraces in his descriptions of islam and other ways that he judges human beings, a description he voluntarily uses in the O'Reilly interview. He then makes another curious mistake by trying to claim a logical connection between religion and 'religious' dictators but drawing a distinction between the motivations of political despots and atheist despots. In the latter case, oppression was perpetrated in Dawkins's view by political factors but for some strange reason, political factors are to be put aside when the religious regime's motivations are being analysed and religion becomes the dominant driver of oppression.

Even in this short interview, many of Dawkins's philosophical flaws are exposed and I would suggest this the reason why his admirers find this style of interview annoying. O'Reilly is actually quite an incisive interviewer, I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw Richard Dawkins. Personally I wouldn't buy either of their books, but being two peas in the same pod I think they make a lovely couple.

O'Reily is either genuinely ignorant ro plays as if he is for ratings.
O'Reilly is not all or every believer/theist.
My comments are specific to what he says in this video and it is not accurate to attribute them as applying to all believers.
I therefore exclude myself from your list.

[Exi5tentialist]

So claiming that the whole of western civilization is based on one (type of) myth is an exaggeration at best.

Western civilisation as a whole then

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Couldn't watch more than about 1 1/2 minutes of that tosser interrupting his guest and shouting over him.
O'Reilly is an annoying fucking bell-end.

[tattuchu]

Couldn't watch more than about 1 1/2 minutes of that tosser interrupting his guest and shouting over him.
O'Reilly is an annoying fucking bell-end.

In this video, he's actually very polite compared to older clips I've seen. I think he's had anger management counseling or something.

[Hermit]

O'Reilly is actually quite an incisive interviewer

Not quite how I would describe him. Someone who disagrees with the notion that all religions are scams because he does not know what causes tides is not in a position to be an 'incisive interviewer'. Especially when he cites his ignorance as proof of god. 'Opinionated ignoramus' seems more fitting.

[Exi5tentialist]

O'Reilly is actually quite an incisive interviewer

Not quite how I would describe him. Someone who disagrees with the notion that all religions are scams because he does not know what causes tides is not in a position to be an 'incisive interviewer'. Especially when he cites his ignorance as proof of god. 'Opinionated ignoramus' seems more fitting.

Yeah I'd agree with 'opinionated ignoramus' but that doesn't mean he's not incisive. He brought out the main points of difference between the two of them very quickly, and Dawkins made a couple of blunders equally quickly that weakened his position. I disagree with your reasons to disqualify him as incisive, infact I think they are rather lame.