Saturday, January 8, 2011

It's The Moon You Idiot!

Bill O'Reilly shows his ignorance again in his latest interview on religion/atheism using his favorite "proof" of a God. "The sun goes up and the sun goes down...the tides comes in, the tide comes out"

Of course you knew Colbert or Stewart would have something to say about this and Stephen Colbert didn't disappoint. He had astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson on to explain tidal forces for Papa Bear O'Reilly who really should come up with a few better examples if he wants to provide proof of a supreme being...you know something that science hasn't already debunked 100's of years ago.

Maybe he should just use the fact that people actually watch him, that's a bit miraculous isn't it?
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill O'Reilly Proves God's Existence - Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive


P.S. - Must give a little love to Colbert for quoting the classic line in the above piece which pretty much explains the existence of all religions throughout human history.

"There must be a God because I don't know how things work."

15 comments:

  1. I'm willing to bet that all day today in your home, your heat will come on and your heat will go off, in cycles just like the sun and the tides.

    Who created the heating system in your home--or did it just spontaneously happen by accident?

    Think about the unscientific principle of how something might come from nothing, and the unscientific principle of how complex and ordered systems routinely spring into existence with no intelligent origin.

    Do yourself a favor and do some thinking today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't you have some gay bashing or something to do over at your place Bob? Science certainly doesn't explain everything...yet...but what it does explain is slowly but surely making religion a footnote in human history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, I've been too busy correcting homosexual activists on their delusions and propaganda to even think of "bashing" any homosexuals.

    Speaking of delusions and propaganda, it's interesting that while "science" continually has to be revised to correct what we "knew" yesterday and today learned we were wrong about...even after thousands of years, not a single thing in the Bible has ever been proven wrong.

    If you're genuinely interested in science, the best starting point would be to read the book written by the Person who invented science.

    Of course, if it's safer to ignore challenging dilemmas like the one I presented to you about your heater, and more comfortable to listen to intellectual greats like Colbert and Stewart, have at it.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us will be busy pursuing real answers and real truth--and finding them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My furnace was invented by someone who was cold and wanted to get warm Bob. That's what humans do, they see a problem and they use the intelligence that evolved over millions of years to solve it. And as for the person that invented science, since the term basically means "to know" why would someone reference a work of fiction that could never be proven sprinkled with a few historical facts that can to find out?

    Finally, yes science is continually revised, that is what makes it science. As we find new evidence we update our theories to reflect it. The religious version of "science" on the other hand tries to fit any new evidence into a previously held belief system and if it can't be made to fit, it is dismissed using religious pseudoscience or discredited as some form of heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. People of intelligence and learning would recognize O'Reilly's comment as a paraphrasing of Socrates, Plato's, Augustine's, and Aquina's 5th teliological proof of the existence of God.

    Only the illiterate wouldn't recognize the paraphrasing and would bring in a technician to explain the tides. To bring in a astrophysicist to explain a philosophy argument is as stupid as bringing in a expert on microwave transmission principles to a cooking class on using a microwave.

    In the former, O'Reilly wasn't referencing literally what makes tides but the greater order of the universe. In the latter, the cook doesn't care how the microwaves get transmitted to the food but the effect the microwaves have on the food.

    It is sad when liberals think a comedy show is their source of "intellectual" political discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So when debating a billboard that claims religion is a scam, quoting philosophy is an intelligent comeback? To me it begs for the comedic treatment it received and Colbert was more than willing to oblige. O'Reilly gets off on bringing in guests like David Silverman and shouting them down using his "philosophical arguments" and the humor is when he gets it thrown back in his face.

    Colbert is not a news source Troy and neither is O'Reilly. Colbert just has the sense of humor that O'Reilly and his viewers seem to lack.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So your furnace, which comes and goes like the sun and the tides, was invented by an intelligent being, but the sun and tides, which operate according to orderly scientific laws, were not created by an intelligent being? That's not a very intelligent assumption.

    So you don't understand why the person who knows all and created all should be consulted in man's quest for understanding? Especially when this person wrote down for us a large number of scientific, historical and moral truths for our benefit--not a single one of which has been falsified in thousands of years? (As opposed to the "science" and "knowledge" of human beings who have to revise what they "know" on a weekly and even daily basis?)

    Sounds like you're deliberately closing off the most important and potentially fruitful avenue of "knowing" one could ever explore.

    If you insist on being obtuse, that's certainly your choice to make. But to claim to "know" something when you're (1) deliberately dismissing a certain source of information that has an unbroken record of reliability, and (2) basing your entire philosophy and supposed understanding of the universe on assumptions which are continually falsified, seems to indicate a deep state of self-deception.

    ReplyDelete
  8. [...] Heads In honor of those that actually believe that some people get their news from Comedy Central (you know who you are), I thought I’d post a portion of one of our “newscasts” as I am guessing most of [...]

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bob,

    Basic Philosophy teaches there are certain arguments for the proof of God. I believe there are generally grouped in around 16 thematic on of which is what O'Reilly paraphrased.

    Your introduction said O’Reilly showed his "ignorance again" by paraphrasing what is considered one of the strongest in intellectual circles.

    I have no problem with Colbert making fun as it is what he does. What I contend is your not recognizing O'Reilly's argument was the incidence of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Troy, the ignorance comes into play when O'Reilly brings on an Atheist, whom by the very definition of Atheism doesn't believe in a higher power mainly because they have not seen any empirical evidence to prove otherwise, and dismisses his position by quoting a philosophical argument that any Atheist would dismiss out of hand. Usually he also resorts to shouting these guests down when they try to respond.

    If you wish to get into a philosophical discussion about religion feel free to do so with your church mates on Sundays or at the very least with those that you are willing to listen to when they respond. O'Reilly enjoys doing this and it was enjoyable seeing Colbert call him out for it

    ReplyDelete
  11. Comments:

    1) You didn't post/link us to the exchange of O'Reilly and the atheist. I don't know the context of the comment but instead used a comedian. But, on the surface, what he said was highly informed and not ignorant.

    2) The teliological argument O'Reilly cited is arguably the most effective "proof" with an atheist because when combined with Occam's Razor and you can't prove a negative, at best, the atheist must concede logically to agnosticim. In an intellectual discussion, an atheist who dismisses it out of hand isn't being intellectual.

    3) I don't know if O'Reilly shouted him down. You showed us only what a comedian had to say.

    4) More importantly, because you didn't show us the context of the conversation, I don't know why this discussion was had. But, O'Reilly is free to have any debate he wants and should be given credit for allowing an atheist to present his views.

    Bottom line: It isn't O'Reilly who looks ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry, I assumed, as did Colbert, that you had seen O'Reilly at work.

    As to your theological explanation, not sure where you are going. Since Occam's Razor is usually proven wrong ie. the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth (the sun goes up and the sun goes down…the tides comes in, the tide comes out) etc.. Then throw in the fact that the positive in this case cannot be proven which all but proves the negative, agnosticism would seem to be the least logical conclusion.

    Either you believe in the tooth fairy or you don't.

    Oh and thanks for calling me ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob, look at your opening post. You said O'Reilly was ignorant for paraphrasing a well-known and highly respected (by believers and non-believers) proof God exists. Similarly, you seem to have bought into Colbert satirical treatment of that statement.

    Without even seeing O'Reilly's complete context and only a short snippet, I instantly recognized it as the teliologcial argument. If I can recognize it as a summary of a deep intellectual argument, I wouldn't say O'Relly showed ignorance but instead depth.

    Similarly, Occam's Razor is not usually proven wrong. In fact, it is a basic principle of scientific and intellectual pursuits.

    Finally, if a proposition can't be proven absolutely, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means the available information is insufficient for absolute proof. No intellectual I have ever seen has ever said "the fact that the positive in this case cannot be proven which all but proves the negative" because it defies the basic principles of logic.

    By the way, I don't believe in the tooth fairy. Virtually nobody above the age of 10 does. However, I believe in God. So do a majority of people who have ever lived. The analogy isn't very appropriate in an intellectual discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. [...] Heads In honor of those that actually believe that some people get their news from Comedy Central (you know who you are), I thought I’d post a portion of one of our “newscasts” as I am guessing most of [...]

    ReplyDelete
  15. So your furnace, which comes and goes like the sun and the tides, was invented by an intelligent being, but the sun and tides, which operate according to orderly scientific laws, were not created by an intelligent being? That's not a very intelligent assumption.

    So you don't understand why the person who knows all and created all should be consulted in man's quest for understanding? Especially when this person wrote down for us a large number of scientific, historical and moral truths for our benefit--not a single one of which has been falsified in thousands of years? (As opposed to the "science" and "knowledge" of human beings who have to revise what they "know" on a weekly and even daily basis?)

    Sounds like you're deliberately closing off the most important and potentially fruitful avenue of "knowing" one could ever explore.

    If you insist on being obtuse, that's certainly your choice to make. But to claim to "know" something when you're (1) deliberately dismissing a certain source of information that has an unbroken record of reliability, and (2) basing your entire philosophy and supposed understanding of the universe on assumptions which are continually falsified, seems to indicate a deep state of self-deception.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are allowed as long a you pick a pseudonym and stick with it. Posting under multiple names is not permitted and will result in all comments being deleted.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.