This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins

O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins - Comments

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 1 by Cook@Tahiti

O'Reilly didn't disappoint. Always entertaining. Never a miscommunication.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:20:02 UTC | #879581

Sarek's Avatar Comment 2 by Sarek

O'Reilly is utterly obnoxious.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:27:16 UTC | #879583

OurLadyof...'s Avatar Comment 3 by OurLadyof...

How does Richard do it? How does he sit there and listen to that creature and his obnoxious misuse of the word 'reality'? I would lose my patience very quickly.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:29:02 UTC | #879584

Kim Probable's Avatar Comment 4 by Kim Probable

For the longest time I had no idea what Richard Dawkins did, because he was always referred to by the title "Atheist." I kind of think that's really funny now. Forget all of the other work he's done - biologist, best selling author, speaker, etc... "Atheist." =D

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:29:32 UTC | #879585

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 5 by Ignorant Amos

O'Reilly is a condescending prick....the tide goes in, the tide goes out.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:33:14 UTC | #879588

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 6 by Neodarwinian

Religion a constraint on society? Sure, if you mean constrained from Enlightenment values. How many stories here have shown the " constraining " influence of religion on society? Check a few posts, to several posts below this story about Dawkins and his factor encounter and you can always be sure to see some " constraining ' of someone's society somewhere.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:35:29 UTC | #879590

some asshole's Avatar Comment 7 by some asshole

Ah, yes, the "constraining influence of religion". Does this make sense to anyone, including O'Reilly? Clearly Pol Pot, et. al. did not feel the need to let their behavior be constrained by religion. This is the same manner in which so many psychopaths do not let the illegality of murder constrain them from killing. So what is the point? The point is what religious scumbags love to claim--that you cannot be good without believing in a nonsensical sky friend. In other words, atheists are scum. Message received.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:39:16 UTC | #879591

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 8 by mjwemdee

Sorry - I tried to listen, really I did. But the stupid, it hurts.

Gave up after 15 seconds of O'Reilly's crap.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:55:41 UTC | #879596

danconquer's Avatar Comment 9 by danconquer

O'Reilly is a bona fide retard I'm afraid. I know that word gets bandied around alot, but he actually is very, very dim indeed. He does not, for example, understand how percentages work. I'm guessing that, hmm, at least 85-90% of the population understand the concept of percentages, even if they are not that great with numbers.

During a discussion on cannabis use and the fact that a higher percentage of Americans have used the drug compared to Dutch nationals (where it is legal) O'Reilly helpfully explains that the lower percentage is because "the Netherlands is a much smaller country".

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:58:41 UTC | #879597

kaiserkriss's Avatar Comment 10 by kaiserkriss

What an absolute pompous condescending prick! I really can't see any upside for this guy to have intelligent guests on his program with his attitude. Why is he even on TV and have an audience? jcw

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:23:07 UTC | #879603

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 11 by InYourFaceNewYorker

I invite everyone to express their deepest sympathies to Richard as he recovers from being subjected to the imbecilic rantings of Bill O'Reilly.

Incidentally, if you go on YouTube you can see a version of this where O'Reilly says that Richard broke the 8th commandment by lying and telling reporters that O'Reilly yelled at him (it's the 9th commandment, you idiot) in the '09 interview. Then he said that he forgave Richard and let him back on the show because forgiveness is a Christian value. Sorry, Bill. You're the one who's lying. You DID yell at him last time. I still get a kick out of Richard telling him, "Will you listen to me and stop shouting at me?" in the '09 interview.

Oh, and I sent Bill O'Reilly a PM through his YouTube channel in which I reminded him that Richard's current book is NOT The God Delusion and that he should grow up and stop bringing every interview with Richard back to his lack of belief in God.

And ever see this gem? "How'd the moon get there?"


Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:30:24 UTC | #879604

Wake_Up's Avatar Comment 12 by Wake_Up

Why, why, why do they always bring up the Stalin, Mao, and any evil atheist argument? Even when they are given an answer, they refuse to listen? Also, does Bill O'Reilly realize that Buddha taught a non-theistic philosophy?

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:36:04 UTC | #879606

RDfan's Avatar Comment 13 by RDfan

The reason RD sits there and takes it, as it were, is the reason he is a best-selling author. The key word there is best-selling, i.e. best at selling. And to sell best, one may have to put up with a little nonsense. In a sense, RD is talking past the interviewer and to the millions, I presume, who listen to the program. In other words, this program amounts to a 4 minute advert - at the meager price of a little personal discomfort - for the book. Well done Richard.

P.S: love the book and sending copies to my nephew and niece!

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:42:37 UTC | #879607

sanban's Avatar Comment 14 by sanban

Whatever else O'Reilly is, he's a crappy interviewer. He brought Richard on his show, announced he was there to talk about his new book, and then proceeded to hijack his own interview by jumping on his moronic hobby horse about evil, immoral atheists. The interview ended and all we found out was that the book mentions myths from around the world. (Good on you, Richard, for sneaking in that fact.)

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:53:54 UTC | #879609

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 15 by SoHelpMeReason

It hurt. It hurt so bad. Halfway through the video I was clasping my shirt, flopped over like a dying tree branch, begging MAKE IT ENNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD! I'm in pain! The stupid is so toxic!

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:54:31 UTC | #879610

boogerjames's Avatar Comment 16 by boogerjames

I made it to 2:16. I challenge anyone to make if farther without having to hit the stop button.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:56:38 UTC | #879611

Functional Atheist's Avatar Comment 17 by Functional Atheist

Comment 9 by danconquer :

O'Reilly is a bona fide retard I'm afraid. I know that word gets bandied around alot, but he actually is very, very dim indeed.

Really? I wonder who you are spending time with, if they bandy 'retard' around so frequently. In most circles I'm aware of, the word "retard" is increasingly avoided, as it is considered an offensive pejorative with a cruel history. It is kind of a mini N-word--not quite so bad, but on the continuum of rudeness with words like 'fag.'

I also take issue with equating ignorance or a differing opinion with stupidity. O'Reilly is no genius, and I disagree with him on most issues, but his IQ is surely somewhere within two standard deviations of the mean, as is 95% of the population. A single dumb statement about percentages, which you cited, is thin evidence regarding a man who has such huge amounts of airtime to fill.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:01:43 UTC | #879614

bchaffin25's Avatar Comment 18 by bchaffin25

Bill O'Reily really is one of the most annoying individuals on earth. It isn't that he's ignorant, he's stubborn and refuses to adhere to knowledge and information. He's so fixated in his own personal opinion that he doesn't allow for the possibility that he may be wrong. What really makes it bad is that he has a severe misunderstanding of the religion he continuously quotes and of the implications of what Dawkins had to say. Utterly pathetic.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:07:12 UTC | #879617

TobySaunders's Avatar Comment 19 by TobySaunders

Because truth is a big part of ethics, it was good to promote science on such an unethical & unscientific program. O'Reilly's belief in belief stance probably bodes well for the progression of goodness because it's better than believing the horrid mythology. -it's worth keeping in mind that conservative minds are disabled: they lack sufficient endocannabinoids to allow meaningful thought-plasticity, and lack various configurations of brain-hardware to change their thoughts such that they track reality as well as they should without lots of help. We should help the disabled people of ethically-conservative variety via education; I'm being serious... disability is not a joke, ethically-conservative, tradition-based thinking is a massive threat to well-being and it should be stopped via education. -it's not about convincing those with conservative minds that they are 'idiots' (a crap term anyway), but it should be about promoting well-being... realising one's beliefs are wrong is not as bad as it should feel for those of O'Reillys brain variety... he needs help, he has been hurt in the past as so many have been and we all need help to change for the better.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:14:09 UTC | #879618

AnthropicConstance's Avatar Comment 20 by AnthropicConstance

Why doesn't O'Reilly just interview himself? For all the chance he gives Dawkins to say something he might as well.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:41:11 UTC | #879626

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 21 by Agrajag

Comment 17 by Functional Atheist

Really? I wonder who you are spending time with, if they bandy 'retard' around so frequently. In most circles I'm aware of, the word "retard" is increasingly avoided, as it is considered an offensive pejorative with a cruel history. It is kind of a mini N-word--not quite so bad, but on the continuum of rudeness with words like 'fag.'

What he meant to say was "Fucktard".
Fixed. :-)

The video was painful to watch. It is nothing less than amazing that Richard is able to hold himself together and not throttle Bill.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:42:34 UTC | #879627

kidchicago's Avatar Comment 22 by kidchicago

The Tide goes in, and the Tide goes out, but the snarled,crusted cobwebs in O'Reilly's brain remain. Maybe a change to bleach, borax, and brighteners would have a material effect.The man is utterly pathetic.

Why Richard lowers himself to the level of this stooge for some marginal incremental book revenue is totally beyond me.

Richard, perhaps you would entertain an explanation for us??????

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:47:33 UTC | #879629

MarinerATX's Avatar Comment 23 by MarinerATX

Book? Did someone say something about a book? That part seems to have gotten lost in the flurry of logical fallacies. So -- religion is true because it provides a constraint on morality, but you can't tell me how the universe began, so you don't get to talk about your new book in which you try to get young people excited about science and the natural world. Makes perfect sense to me....

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 03:15:00 UTC | #879635

rjohn19's Avatar Comment 24 by rjohn19

Richard please! Meet him in a formal debate. It would be a thing of beauty. But don't meet him again in his own personal liiter box. The stench of his ilk is difficult to shower off.

And when he says "Religion is a great restraint on human behavior," answer, "Well, yes, that's what it was intended to be when men invented it but it seems to have quit working."

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 03:28:15 UTC | #879637

Cents's Avatar Comment 25 by Cents

I hate OReilly (been there done that) and the thought of watching Richard having to put up with this phony scumbag has caused me to avoid watching this video and only reading your comments. Its all I can stomach.

I just want to thank Richard for putting up with this gormless twit in order to bring the light of science and reality to the vacuous audience that watches Fox News.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:12:21 UTC | #879645

scattering-like-light's Avatar Comment 26 by scattering-like-light

Oh that man is such a massive cock. I'd like to say something more intelligent than that, but I'm afraid that is my overarching thoughts on the matter. Well done RD for swimming through his bullshit.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:44:54 UTC | #879653

Gleb Filatov's Avatar Comment 27 by Gleb Filatov

I have long suspected that Richard likes trolling... in the best sense of the word :-) I first learned about O'Reilly today, and my retinas and eardrums stiill hum of discontent. I'm surprised Richard's patience. I sympathize with him, that he must constantly over the years grind the same to ignorant people such as this erratic...

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:57:00 UTC | #879655

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 28 by drumdaddy

I strongly object to this column's use of a an anonymous hyperlink that brings readers to a Fox News website! I intentionally do not patronize any holdings of Murdoch and I certainly don't want Fox cookies or malware on my computer. Don't do it again!

The interview with the deceitful shill O'Reilly can be found on YouTube:

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:11:28 UTC | #879658

Sample's Avatar Comment 29 by Sample

Comment 14 by sanban Whatever else O'Reilly is, he's a crappy interviewer.

Yes, I agree. I raised an eyebrow when O'Reilly pointed and replied, "Ah haaaaa!" Was that his impression of a ten year old boy or was it a ruse to mask the consequences of too many burritos?


Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:22:01 UTC | #879660

Old Coppernose's Avatar Comment 30 by Old Coppernose

Yeah O'Reilly likes to make it look like RD is known only for being an atheist. Note how he refers to him as "Mr Dawkins" whereas courtesy would be to acknowledge him as Professor. RD is very experienced and so I guess he knows how best to play it, but I'm surprised he didnt say "I thought I was here to discuss my book?" at some point. We learnt very little about it from this interview.

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:26:27 UTC | #879664