• Bill O'Reilly Calls Richard Dawkins A Fascist
    119 replies, posted
There we go! The Dawkinization continues. Does Fox News have any credibility left? Also, isn't militant atheism a virtual impossibility? It's not a cause, more a point of view.
[QUOTE=TH89;17769431]I wouldn't call him militant, per se, he just doesn't really try to not hurt people's feelings.[/QUOTE] I do believe he described himself as a militant atheist at TED.
Dawkins sounds like the usual stuffy atheist.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;17769458]Dawkins sounds like the usual stuffy atheist.[/QUOTE] Well I'm sure practically anyone who thinks is stuffy compared to you.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17769484]Well I'm sure practically anyone who thinks is stuffy compared to you.[/QUOTE] How many avatars are we up to now? Conceitedness at its finest.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;17769513]How many avatars are we up to now? Conceitedness at its finest.[/QUOTE] How the holy hell is that conceited? He has a good coolface.
Er The idea was Dawkins making hilarious faces, not just Dawkins avatars We're not trying to be douches, here
Richard Dawkins is in fact a total dick and a douchebag, and fox news pretends to be a news station.
[QUOTE=KorJax;17769951]Richard Dawkins is in fact a total dick and a douchebag, and fox news pretends to be a news station.[/QUOTE] How is he a douchebag?
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=2843&dateline=1255234021[/img]
The brilliant moment in this video is the look on Dawkins face when Dumbass O'reilly attempts to suggest that science "has not advanced the human condition"
[QUOTE=fragmaplas;17770068][img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=2843&dateline=1255234021[/img][/QUOTE] Because he has a really smug smile . . .?
[QUOTE=professional;17770088]The brilliant moment in this video is the look on Dawkins face when Dumbass O'reilly attempts to suggest that science "has not advanced the human condition"[/QUOTE] Dawkins has so many priceless facial expressions in this video, it's just a goldmine. [editline]01:55AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17770092]Because he has a really smug smile . . .?[/QUOTE] I wasn't responding to you, I was just posting that picture.
Bill O'Reilly is stupid, evolution doesn't explain how life began because it isn't [i]meant[/i] to.
[QUOTE=Komato General Tor;17770201]Bill O'Reilly is stupid, evolution doesn't explain how life began because it isn't [i]meant[/i] to.[/QUOTE] He really needs to pick up a good book on Abiogenesis
[QUOTE=fragmaplas;17770231]He really needs to pick up a good book on Abiogenesis[/QUOTE] lol lole atheists think we evolved from soup lol lole
[QUOTE=Komato General Tor;17770240]lol lole atheists think we evolved from soup lol lole[/QUOTE] or if you watched [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled]expelled[/url], life came from lightning striking a mud puddle.
Now I'm a Protestant but people like Bill O'Reilly are just rude and don't sound as smart as they make themselves out to be. Dawkins did a good job defending himself and science in this 'interview'.
[QUOTE=professional;17770088]The brilliant moment in this video is the look on Dawkins face when Dumbass O'reilly attempts to suggest that science "has not advanced the human condition"[/QUOTE] Not defending O'reilly by any means, but the full sentence was "has not advanced the human condition in the sense of morality" which is wrong anyway, but less stupid.
Some people should be denied the right to talk. I'm glad Dawkins told him to shut up, albeit nicely Though, if you really think about it (and this is where it gets depressing), Religion wins in the end. While the basic teachings of religion is be caring considerate & love your brother & all that, deep down Religion is about control. A way to control the human population. Religion causes war, war keeps human population under control. Science, on the other hand, is about knowledge & intelligence. It's about keeping each person alive for as long as possible, to let them enjoy life. It's also about improving the quality of life. The side effect is, so many people survive that we start to overcrowd the earth. It started exploding about 100 years ago. [img]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2008/wees.jpg[/img] Science saves the humans. Religion saves the world from the humans.
[QUOTE=Solid_Granite;17770417]Some people should be denied the right to talk. I'm glad Dawkins told him to shut up, albeit nicely Though, if you really think about it (and this is where it gets depressing), Religion wins in the end. While the basic teachings of religion is be caring considerate & love your brother & all that, deep down Religion is about control. A way to control the human population. Religion causes war, war keeps human population under control. Science, on the other hand, is about knowledge & intelligence. It's about keeping each person alive for as long as possible, to let them enjoy life. It's also about improving the quality of life. The side effect is, so many people survive that we start to overcrowd the earth. It started exploding about 100 years ago. [img]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2008/wees.jpg[/img] Science saves the humans. Religion saves the world from the humans.[/QUOTE] Science also brought us the Nuclear bomb, Tanks, Carpet Bombing, And Zyklon B. If religion had it's way we would still be living in the stone age with the pope telling the kings what to do. In other words: Science Wins.
[QUOTE=fragmaplas;17770068][img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=2843&dateline=1255234021[/img][/QUOTE] God, that is such epicness as an avatar
[QUOTE=Solid_Granite;17770417]Some people should be denied the right to talk. I'm glad Dawkins told him to shut up, albeit nicely Though, if you really think about it (and this is where it gets depressing), Religion wins in the end. While the basic teachings of religion is be caring considerate & love your brother & all that, deep down Religion is about control. A way to control the human population. Religion causes war, war keeps human population under control. Science, on the other hand, is about knowledge & intelligence. It's about keeping each person alive for as long as possible, to let them enjoy life. It's also about improving the quality of life. The side effect is, so many people survive that we start to overcrowd the earth. It started exploding about 100 years ago. [img]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2008/wees.jpg[/img] Science saves the humans. Religion saves the world from the humans.[/QUOTE] Except science also allows more people to live on a smaller space. And by the time there are 100 billion people living here we'll be in space or some shit.
Richard Dawkins is a fucking man's man. He can kick ass without even raising his voice.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxJoCzLJyw[/media]
I lol'd when Bill just shouted "That's fascism!" when he ran out of defenses. I doubt he even knows what it means.
I hate them both. They are so similar in their little ways. O'Reilly is just another Christian extremist idiot, and Dawkins is just a cunt. I feel ashamed to call myself an atheist even though I am one. All because we got people like Dawkins who likes to dick around with religious people and pick fights and make us all look bad.
I would never have excepted that bloated mother fucker calling me a fascist, I'd have said "this interview is over" and walked out.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17770032]How is he a douchebag?[/QUOTE] He's exactly like Westboro Baptist Church members, except instead of being pro-religion he's anti-religion. Fanaticism is stupid no matter what you believe in.
[QUOTE=KorJax;17778646]He's exactly like Westboro Baptist Church members, except instead of being pro-religion he's anti-religion. Fanaticism is stupid no matter what you believe in.[/QUOTE] No, he really really isn't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.