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

← Believers vs. Non-Believers: Bill O’Reilly And Deepak Chopra Take On Atheists

Believers vs. Non-Believers: Bill O’Reilly And Deepak Chopra Take On Atheists - Comments

scattering-like-light's Avatar Comment 1 by scattering-like-light

I cannot believe the blatant lies O'Reilly is prepared to spout about Dawkins. He must know that people can check ! And the notion that that he has 'kicked his ass' twice is transparently untrue to anyone who has seen those interviews. In both cases, O'Reilly came across as an ignorant fool, and Dawkins admirably and politely put up with his non-sensical bullshit and did his best to provide clear, rational responses in face of idiocy.

It does not surprise me in the least see O'Reilly align himself with 'Prince of Quantum Flapdoodle' Deepak Chopra.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:22:46 UTC | #886706

SeanSantos's Avatar Comment 2 by SeanSantos

Oh goody, two totally opposite types of idiot find something that they can agree on.

I'd watch the video, but I've seen both these guys apart and... I just don't feel like vomiting today.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:26:53 UTC | #886707

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 3 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:29:01 UTC | #886708

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 4 by Sean_W

The star of David and the cross are creepy, I wonder if their arrangement was intentional. No reason to suspect the omission of the crescent and star was not.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:41:01 UTC | #886709

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 5 by Atheist Mike

Wasn't he supposed to say something about the bigoted country club? Whatever happened to that?

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:59:47 UTC | #886710

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 6 by Atheist Mike

Just watched the video. I wish I hadn't, they're such idiots.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:14:29 UTC | #886713

Quine's Avatar Comment 7 by Quine

These guys are like a parody of themselves. I sat there and watched Deepshit Chakra make an idiot of himself in the Caltech debate with Sam Harris and Michael Shermer. Now, he quotes Leonard Mlodinow, who told him Deepshit knew nothing about quantum physics, from the audience, at that debate (and you can see it in this video starting at 2:31). After the debate Deepshit realized he could use Leonard to get some cred so he talked him into doing a book. That has not changed Leonard's views, and the quote he uses is the honest thing we all know, you can't prove the non-existence of a deity that provides no evidence. Notice how Deepshit twists that to make it sound like it supports his views.

P.S. Watch Deepshit get busted, again, here.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:23:21 UTC | #886714

sbooder's Avatar Comment 8 by sbooder

I am not sure who Deepak Chopra was expecting to interview him on his odd use of the word Quantum? Maybe a children’s television presenter perhaps or (Look I can fly) David Copperfield?

One must feel sorry for the religious who must resort to dishonesty because they can not compete anymore with facts and Science, their arguments have become tiered...Hey Bill, the tiered goes in, the tiered goes out!

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:25:13 UTC | #886716

Karen Hill Anton's Avatar Comment 9 by Karen Hill Anton

... I can't inflict this on myself today ...

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:39:58 UTC | #886717

Jared F's Avatar Comment 10 by Jared F

This is painful...

Bill, he's right; you and Deepak are idiots. Demonstrably so.

Deepak has better scientific credentials than Dawkins? In what bizarro universe?

I'm sure Hawking would be embarrassed to be name-dropped by that moron.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:49:46 UTC | #886720

Quine's Avatar Comment 11 by Quine

Jared F: I'm sure Hawking would be embarrassed to be name-dropped by that moron.

Hawking wrote a book with Mlodinow, that is what I was referring to by Deepshit using Mlodinow to get cred. This even though their (Chopra and Mlodinow) book shows them on opposite sides.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:08:53 UTC | #886724

Jared F's Avatar Comment 12 by Jared F

Comment 11 by Quine :

Jared F: I'm sure Hawking would be embarrassed to be name-dropped by that moron.

Hawking wrote a book with Mlodinow, that is what I was referring to by Deepshit using Mlodinow to get cred. This even though their (Chopra and Mlodinow) book shows them on opposite sides.

So then more spin from the No Spin Zone...

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:14:53 UTC | #886725

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 13 by susanlatimer

Comment 11 by Quine

Your link took me to (among other things) the publisher's description.

In War of the Worldviews these two great thinkers battle over the cosmos, evolution and life, the human brain, and God, probing the fundamental questions that define the human experience.

That's all it takes to be considered a "great thinker". Sell lots of books and do a project with Mlodinow.

How did the universe emerge?
What is the nature of time?
What is life? Did Darwin go wrong?
What makes us human?

Because they both hold themselves equally to the highest standards of evidence when they explore these questions.

That's showbiz.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:26:00 UTC | #886728

erindorothy's Avatar Comment 14 by erindorothy

I'm sorry, I just can't watch O'-bloody-annoying-twit-git-Reilly - or the other one. I've had food poisoning this week and couldn't stand vomiting again.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:57:34 UTC | #886733

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 15 by Jos Gibbons

Comment Removed by Author

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:07:11 UTC | #886735

PERSON's Avatar Comment 16 by PERSON

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:10:19 UTC | #886737

The Babel Fish's Avatar Comment 17 by The Babel Fish

Clearly O'Reilly (and by the way, never trust anything you hear from someone who can't spell his own name) is unfamiliar with the works of our lord Python, or he would know that simple contradiction does not an argument make.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:27:30 UTC | #886741

monkey's uncle's Avatar Comment 18 by monkey's uncle

Comment 1 by scattering-like-light :

I cannot believe the blatant lies O'Reilly is prepared to spout about Dawkins. He must know that >people can check !

Perhaps he knows that most of his target audience will not check & that many will believe that it would be wrong to check. They have made their minds up a long time ago. The last thing that they want is facts confusing the issue.

I find this when I am occasionally involved in conversations about Richard Dawkins being aggressively anti-theist. I invariably ask if they can give me an example of a quote from Richard which they consider to be unreasonably aggressive. They invariably fail to provide one but retreat into the "everyone knows that's how he is" type of argument. they don't just ignore facts, they positively resent them being bought into a discussion.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:29:16 UTC | #886742

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 19 by Vorlund

O'Reilly must be the happiest man on earth he has an abundance of the key ingredients, arrogance and ignorance.

To hear these retarded wankers accuse others of emotive arguments, irrationaility and bigotry is irony without precedent.

Xtians are well known liars. Having colluded with liars to deceive themselves with the impossible, lying to anyone else to protect their fairy story credentials is trivial.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part I (1793).

Yes O'Reilly every other crime, for example, like forcibly and repeatedly sodomizing children and lying cover it up just like your fellow filthy catholics do.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:45:49 UTC | #886744

rtfa's Avatar Comment 20 by rtfa

Has anyone ever visited here http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ ? Its very enlightening regarding the origins of christianity, search out Mithras....

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:05:18 UTC | #886749

gordon's Avatar Comment 21 by gordon

I watched it and now I wish I hadn't. He kicked Dawkins butt!!!!!

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:00:53 UTC | #886761

Wendy Farts On Her Bible's Avatar Comment 22 by Wendy Farts On Her Bible

Prepacked Copro makes around $20 million a year selling his droppings to gullible Westerners.

Do not stop fighting.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:18:49 UTC | #886764

peter mayhew's Avatar Comment 23 by peter mayhew

We should wlecome this: the more they discuss the issue, the more apparent how bad their reasons are and how sensible the other side is.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:32:19 UTC | #886769

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 24 by mjwemdee

Previously, he spoke with atheist author Richard Dawkins about his book for young people

No he didn't. He just sat and hectored Richard for about five minutes.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:33:36 UTC | #886770

thebaldgit's Avatar Comment 25 by thebaldgit

Is there no beginning to Bill O'Reilly's talents him and Deepshit Chopra truly are the bollock brothers.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:47:31 UTC | #886775

b612's Avatar Comment 26 by b612

Chopra is a guy who uses elements of all religions in the world to create his own spiritual mishmash which he can sell to naive consumers with different religious backgrounds. That is the source of his wealth.

Notice how, in this video, he has difficulties finishing his sentence when he talks about "the great prophets...". He says: "the great prophets... -stumble stumble-... Jesus... whoever..." (around 3:32 of the video).

The reason why he adds "Jesus..." to that sentence is because by "the great prophets" he, as a consequence of the above-mentioned commercially lucrative spiritual mishmash, actually means Mohammed as well. But hey, he's being interviewed by the biggest evangelical bigot of the most bigoted evangelical TV station, so now he has to assure his bigoted christian viewers / potential buyers that he's really only talking about the prophets Christians can cope with. But at the same time he realizes that he should not contradict himself and should add a small safety net to his sentence: "Jesus... whoever..."

In the end we can say that he managed to avoid his Christian viewers from hearing the name of their antichrist (Mohammed) without having to contradict himself.

Did anyone else notice the dollar signs in his eyes at 05:11 too?

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:10:13 UTC | #886783

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 27 by SaganTheCat

is it ok if i don't watch this and just go straight to laying my head on the table until the rage dissapates?

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:44:56 UTC | #886795

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 28 by SaganTheCat

bugger i watched it

i loved the way they agree with their differences such as chopra mentions evolution and o'reilly agrees with him mentioning inteligent design

still good to see they both agree that they both "kicked his ass" (in chopras case the evil dawkins edited out 2hrs 55 mins of ass kicking, in o'reilly's well, anyone who doesn agree effectively has their ass kicked by virtue of being wrong from the start)

hey, didn't chopras people kill o'reilly's god? more on this please

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:14:12 UTC | #886810

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 29 by AtheistEgbert

This was really an advert for Deepak Chopra's new book, and the 'controversy' was a marketing trick to get advertising for the book. It works both ways of course, as controversy helps promote atheists books.

None of this has anything to do with intellectual discussion.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:15:12 UTC | #886811

some asshole's Avatar Comment 30 by some asshole

O'Reilly is an idiot who doesn't even bother using the sophistic defenses for Olmatta Gawud's existence that religionists have been using for centuries. As far as I have ever seen, he sticks to the brainless "I believe because I believe" excuse. Fortunately for him, that's good enough for his regular, brainless viewers.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:20:09 UTC | #886814