Dawkins to be on The Factor

[clark]

From here (http://richarddawkins.net/event,143,The-OReilly-Factor):

Richard Dawkins will be interviewed by conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly on Monday, April 23, at 8.00pm EST on FOX. The program will be rebroadcasted at 11.00pm.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Vampyroteuthis]

WHY!!?? I hate O'Reilly!! Doesn't Dawkins know who he is?! Why doesn't he just appear on the 700 Club? I'm afraid to watch.

Thanks for the info though!!

[Underseer]

O'Reilly's going to have to edit that interview a lot to make himself look smarter than Dawkins.

[ZouPrime]

Bad, bad idea. What the heck is Dawkins thinking? Don't fight battle that are impossible to win. It's O'Reilly show, and he's going to shout down Dawkins for the enjoyment of the masses.

[Vivo]

Holy crap, can't believe this. I hope Dawkins is familiar with him, and has some kind of strategy in mind to overcome O'Reilly's shout-downing.

[EsoCyn]

I think the best strategy would to just to sit there and outclass O'Reilly. Resist his shouting and politely ask him to calm down.

[Revolutionary]

There is no such thing as bad press?

[ApostateAbe]

Any talk show is good publicity for a published author.

[SwoleMan]

O'Reilly's going to have to edit that interview a lot to make himself look smarter than Dawkins.

Dawkins is unfortunately not going to be heard at all, program edited or not.

[SwoleMan]

Any talk show is good publicity for a published author.

I guess so.

[jeffevnz]

I can't stomach O'Reilly. If anyone watches this and it goes surprisingly well, let me know and maybe I'll check it out.

[ComestibleVenom]

I don't know about this. I don't think the adversarial stance is particularly strong to begin with, and Mr. Dawkins does not suffer fools gladly.

[Underseer]

Dawkins is unfortunately not going to be heard at all, program edited or not.

From O'Reilly talking over him? Probably.

[Smohg]

I think O'Reilly is a Christian, but is he a creationist? I don't think he is.

Of course, the conversation is likely going to be about "secular progressives" and the "culture war."

[Russell's Teapot]

I'll have to suffer through watching it...At least my TV doesn't have a Nielsen box :)

[MadPhatCat]

There is no such thing as bad press?

Any talk show is good publicity for a published author.

Sounds about right to me. Question though, are all O'Reilly interviews edited? I thought he sometimes talks to people in the studio in real time?


Edit: According to the comments of anonymous internet users on Dawkins' site, Sam Harris has been on the Factor before and it wasn't a shouting match or anything.

[Tartantyco]

-And I think Dawkins only accepts shows if he can distribute(Well, not distribute but you know what I mean... Hopefully.) the unedited content himself. Most of his interviews and such are posted on his webpage, I assume it's the same deal here.

[Copernic]

Edit: According to the comments of anonymous internet users on Dawkins' site, Sam Harris has been on the Factor before and it wasn't a shouting match or anything.


Actually, I thought Harris we well received. It was actually a pleasant conversation. Perhaps its because Harris fears Islamic Fundamentalists more than Christian Fundamentalists.

[Vivo]

I concur with above post.

[Professor]

Michael Newdow was also on O'Reilly's show and spoke positively about it. He even wrote a song about the experience.

And I seem to recall Lori Lipman Brown mentioning an appearance that went well.

[Clarity]

Was he on? Did anyone see it?

[benjdm]

I recorded it. He was definitely on the show - I was able to see him answer one question live.

ETA: Dawkins' site has the video in Quicktime format here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,915,The-Video-Bill-OReilly-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-OReilly-Factor-Fox-News).

[Fiskur]

It's on Youtube here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI).

[Just_Judy]

You know...as much as I admire Dawkins, and would watch him on or in any event or venue, I don't think I could possibly sit through watching that vile man O'Reilly. Thanks to those who posted alternative ways to view that small segment.

[Negasta]

From his reputation, I expected O'Reilly to be far less civil towards Dawkins.

At least he got the message out to some very benighted people.

[ElectEngr]

From his reputation, I expected O'Reilly to be far less civil towards Dawkins.



Yeah, that was my thought, too. I expected a frothing at the mouth rant from BillO about 5 sec into the interview. My wife called me away about a minute before the interview ended so seeing it on the web was a bonus.

Mr Dawkins did a good job.

There is also a thread in E/C. IMHO this should be merged and placed in EoG forum.

Later,
ElectEngr

[fatpie42]

Just started watching the clip. O'Reilly's made a mistake already.

Japan is not in Europe!

[Nexus]

It was very civil.

The show ended too soon before Dawkins could challenge O'Reily's assertion about Stalin and Hitler and equating atheism with their lacking morality.

Also Bill said he can't prove Jesus is God but Dawkins can't disprove it either. It should be pointed out the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertions.

A good response to someone saying religion gives them answers that atheism can't is that religion is only making up answers not actually providing any.

Bill said he can't believe the world just happened. The balance of nature etc. My response to that is what I call the winning lottery ticket scenario. If something can happen given enough time and chances it will happen. We're here discussing our origins because we "won that contest" billions of years ago with the right combination things in our solar system and planet. Just because there are trillions and trillions of losers elsewhere doesn't mean our having everything just right for life is divine.

[Stacey Melissa]

O'Reilly obviously got lots of stuff wrong - nearly everything he said, actually - but Dawkins corrected him on as much as there was time for. Pretty decent for an American TV interview, where time is always way too short.

[Revolutionary]

I can't stand to listen to O'Reilly for more than a minute. I had to turn the clip off. Blech.

[Nexus]

but Dawkins corrected him on as much as there was time for.Yea he really didn't have anytime to respond.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Dawkins: "We have a fair understanding on why the tides go up and down. Science is piling on the information..."

O'Reilly (interrupting): "Oh, I understand the physiology of it."

:rolling:

------------

This guy doesn't believe what naturalists (he says "you", and from context I presume he means naturalists) say, because, as Dawkins said, "we're working on it", when asked if science can tell where "it all" came from. O'Reilly says he'll wait till then (which is reasonable) he will stick to Catholicism. Catholicism, the religion who used to preach the world was created in 6 days, still thinks embryos have "souls", and opposed Galileo's heliocentrism (which is a pathetically foolish wager).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

O'Reilly: "I can't prove Jesus is God, but you can't prove he's not".

Dawkins: "You can't prove Zeus is not or Apoll-"

O'Reilly: "Oh, I've seen Zeus, he was down there..."


This guy is either psychotic (he's had Zeus delusions), cynical, or seriously challenged for reasoning (in vernacular, dumb) or a combination of any of those three.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Oh'Really -excuse me:D - O'Reilly says he's got almost all of the founding fathers' letters and they say that they couldn't control the country and that belief in Jesus would be a moderating factor.

Oh, really?

Would you lie for Jesus, O'Reilly? Oh, really!

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Dawkins' bad: He never said that Hitler was a theist. He verbally confessed the existence of a God.

Dawkins' other bad: He never asked the guy why he -confessedly on national televsion- discounted the crusades.


Ok, I've finished my "book" report. Conclusion: O'Reilly made an ass of himself on several occasions, Dawkins didn't (only missed some chances to contest O'R.).

[ComestibleVenom]

This guy doesn't believe what naturalists (he says "you", and from context I presume he means naturalists) say, because, as Dawkins said, "we're working on it", when asked if science can tell where "it all" came from.

He wants to know the ultimate answers to everything, but won't give 5 minutes to one of the most talented science educators on the planet.

[fatpie42]

Logos, though Dawkins did not make as many points as he might have, I think he was being careful not to let anything he said be used against him. The two complaints you make do not seem fair.

Dawkins' bad: He never said that Hitler was a theist. He verbally confessed the existence of a God.

Yes he did. He noted explicitly that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. A Roman Catholic is a theist last time I checked....


Dawkins' other bad: He never asked the guy why he -confessedly on national televsion- discounted the crusades.

That's obvious. It's because the crusades happened so blooming long ago. Dawkins could have mentioned abortion clinic bombers, but that would inevitably start a whole other discussion.

Dawkins did pretty well really. I'm quite impressed.

O'Reilly's statement of "oh I saw Apollo down the corridor, he's not all that great" was not a sign that O'Reilly is severely delusional. It was a sign that he was avoiding the question by making a joke.

[_Naturalist_]

I expected a longer "interview" than 4-5 minutes. He kept interrupting Dawkins and even threw in a couple of inaccuracies. Apparently it's ok for a Roman Catholic to lie, or maybe he's simply ignorant. And O'Reilly must live in his own little world if he thinks one of his first arguments is going to impress anyone; that atheism requires a leap of faith and Christianity apparently does not. Does he really think it's a valid argument? He has no evidence that Jesus was god, he just decide it is so, simply because science can't explain everything.

[MadPhatCat]

Considering how short the interview was, and how short each of Dawkins' responses were, I thought he did quite well.

[Malachi151]

Overall do you think this was a positive boost for atheism or not?

Seems to me that this could have only helped the atheist cause.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Overall do you think this was a positive boost for atheism or not?

Seems to me that this could have only helped the atheist cause.

Too short and controlled by O'Reilly.

[Lola]

I don't have a TV so I don't know what many celebreties look and/or sound like, and I just saw this YouTube interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8etMHn4P6g) with Bill O'Reilly and Richard Dawkins.

Dr. Dawkins appears not only confident, but seems like such a likeable, well-spoken and humble man. O'Reilly comes across as very ignorant, close minded, and obnoxious. His arguments were silly and illogical.

As a Roman Catholic, O'Reilly is unsure about Jesus Christ and even says "I'm not postive Jesus is God," so obvioulsy he doesn't know the proclaimations of his own religion. Of course, O'Reilly had to bring up the old argument, Hitler and Stalin, the biggest mass murderers were atheists. :banghead: Dawkins responded well to his lame argument but of course O'Reilly interrupted him.

[Magnus Armstrong]

Dawkins was excellent!

[Hydra009]

Yep. E/C (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=204339) and PSA (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=204327) threads are currently chronicling the encounter.

[Lola]

Oh! Thanks, Hydra! :)

[Lola]

Overall do you think this was a positive boost for atheism or not?

Seems to me that this could have only helped the atheist cause. I would say it was positive; Dawkins repsonded as politely and as assertively as he could and gave no inaccuracies in his rebuttals...even though he was interrupted on most occassions. This was the first time I've ever seen Bill O'Reilly and he proved himself to be ignorant, close-minded, untruthful, and just silly.

I agree that Dawkins did an excellent job in the interveiw and showed good character. O'Reilly is no match wit-for-wit.

[Underseer]

Just started watching the clip. O'Reilly's made a mistake already.

Japan is not in Europe!

How do you know Japan isn't in Europe?

Who am I supposed to believe? The great American patriot and brilliant debater Bill O'Reilly, or some random America-hater on the internet trying to push a political agenda?

:devil1:

[sakrilege]

Moving to PA&SA.

sakrilege
SL Moderator

[Alethias]

Moving to PA&SA.

sakrilege
SL ModeratorAnd I merged it with the other thread on the same topic.
alethias
PA&SA Mod

[Brian63]

O'Reilly's statement of "oh I saw Apollo down the corridor, he's not all that great" was not a sign that O'Reilly is severely delusional. It was a sign that he was avoiding the question by making a joke.

Exactly.

[Monday-morning-quarterback-mode]

Dawkins really could have hit a homerun if he pressed O'Reilly on that instead of letting it slide off as a weak joke.

Overall Dawkins did really well. Who knew it was going to be such a short segment? We atheists here were anticipating an all-out brawl, but apparently there was not much opportunity for it.

Brian

[The Outsider]

I thought Dawkins did quite well also.

At this point, I think we are fighting to be recognized as compassionate human beings more than we are trying to push the facts into public view. If Dawkins pressed O'Reilly on any of the false claims he made it would only strengthen the "arrogant atheist" caricature that the average American makes us out to be.

baby steps, I guess.

[Arch]

Meh, Dawkins merely did ok. (as usual) Right off the bat he could have hammered O'Reilly when O'Reilly started out with the old chestnut of nature just being too perfect. "Oh the sun goes up, the sun goes down, tide comes in tide goes out"etc. I wish Dawkins would get his interview act together. Morons like O'Reilly are only going to come up with a very limited number of weak arguments.

Dawkins does appear to get frustrated and flustered relatively easily during interviews. His condescending smile is pretty good though!

[_Naturalist_]

I don't think it had any effect on those who have already decided that god is real. O'Reilly's fans will rejoice at how brilliant he was, even though clearly he wasn't. But then again he never has to be.