When Hitch comes on, click the link at the top of the video for better audio.
Tag Archive: Richard Dawkins
When it comes to comparing atheists to the likes of Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung and Joseph Stalin, Bill O’Reilly just can’t help himself, even in an interview about a children’s science book.
And when it comes to science, he apparently just can’t learn a damn thing at all:
Now the last time you were here you were honest enough to admit that you don’t know the origin, whether it was a meteor, or something like that. And you said to me, “We’re working on it”, and I said to you, “Let me know.”
Richard Dawkins responded much too politely by saying, “That was only about two years ago”, cutting himself off there instead of continuing on to the natural conclusion of that sentence. What I wish he had said:
“That was only two years ago, you imbecilic fucking creatard who can’t grasp even the simplest scientific concepts such as how the gravitational pull of the moon causes the tides. A meteor? Really? Two years? Really?!? “
Anyhow, here’s the video:
Breaking down some of O’Reilly’s utterances:
“…atheist Richard Dawkins”
How about showing the basic journalistic integrity of calling him biologist Richard Dawkins? Oh, that’s right. Because you don’t have a sliver of integrity in your tiny, angry little mind.
“He’s on a crusade to convince believers they’re idiots.”
No, idiot, he’s appealing to people’s reason based on science and rationality, in order to get them to see that some of their beliefs are unfounded, not that they as individuals are idiots.
“…you were honest enough to admit”
As if it should be assumed automatically that atheists are usually dishonest.
Colbert would be proud.
“The Judeo-Christian philosophy isn’t a myth, it’s reality.”
Even a solid majority of biblical scholars and theologians wouldn’t agree with this statement. So thank you for demonstrating that you know as little about your own religion as you do about science.
The Christian News Wire heaps more bullshit on the steaming pile which is the “Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig” meme:
[Craig’s] upcoming United Kingdom tour has evidently intimidated Richard Dawkins as he has continually refused to debate Craig when he visits his home turf this October.
[…] A war of words has broken out between Dawkins and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic as a sign that he may be losing his nerve. […]
Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig has become an international issue.
Actually, you lying pieces of crap, it hasn’t become an “issue”, even despite your desperate attempts to use Richard Dawkins’ name to manufacture a controversy and elevate Craig’s profile. Which is, after all, rightfully much lower than that of Dawkins, whose popularity is incomparably more widespread, who has a great deal of respect in the scientific and academic community (even from those who disagree with his assertive approach to atheism), and who has actually, you know, accomplished stuff. (I’d imagine, in fact that many who read this might be asking right about now, “William who?”)
The notion that Dawkins is “intimidated” of debating charlatans like Craig is an utter joke. He has been perfectly clear (see video below) that the reason he won’t debate creationist apologists who are no more than “professional debaters” (as opposed to “a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop”, any of whom he says he’d “be happy to debate”): He doesn’t have the tiime to waste on them, or in his words, “I’m busy”. I think it’s reasonable to infer that he considers creationism such a farce that he doesn’t want to give its proponents a platform to preach from.
Furthermore, it seems clear that he has no patience for Craig’s intellectual dishonesty, which Sam Harris aptly described after their “god debate”:
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. The fact that such tricks often work is a real weakness of the debate format, especially one in which the participants are unable to address one another directly.
Video of Dawkins’ answer to the question of why he won’t debate Craig is below the fold. Continue reading