Bill O'Reily challenges scientest to explain how moon got there...

[LarianLeQuella]

In context, his remark is stupid. It's the old thing, if you keep asking "but what was there before?" then eventually you'll get to "I don't know". Some people like to then say "therefore it's God", but that doesn't work for many reasons, just one of which is that you can still ask the question "but what was there before God?" Any answer given about what was there before God can equally apply to a Godless universe.

That has always puzzled me. Why is there such a reluctance to actually admit "I don't know."? In my opinion, those are some powerful words! They lead to words like "Let's find out." and "I was wrong." and other avenues to discovery and realization. Plugging in "goddidit" is just such a weak cop-out that I'm surprised that's even a valid method of thinking. It's just the same primitive god of the gaps argument that has repeatedly failed us since the dawn of time.

Number of times a natural explanation has been replaced by a supernatural explanation in the history of the universe = 0.0

 

[C_Felix]

NASA put it there to justify a very expensive space race against the Soviets. Which it won BTW, because obviously it was rigged because NASA put the finish line themselves. There Bill, are you happy now?

And NASA put the moon there to help bankrupt the Soviet Union out of existence in the late 80's.

I actually watched the little video with Bill in it. Taken out of context, his remark seems stupid. OK, so Bill never learned that science pretty much knows where the moon came from. But I think (I hope) his point is that it is an endless argument. You can go on and on about one thing came from something else and there is no end. He is not really a scientist so he can't put this point using the right words. The fact is, our whole solar system came from dust from an exploded star. So, when Bill is told that he will reply "where did that come from?" and when you eventually get to the Big Bang, he might reply "how did that happen? How does existance itself exist?" and eventually we fall off the map of scientific knowledge completely. I believe this is what he means. So he does not know that we know where the moon came from. If you fault him for being uneducated, you will eventualy fault everyone.

So, because we're not sure how the moon formed, then the slippery slope of "What came before?" is acceptable? Is that what Bill is suggesting?

What's wrong with, "Science admits it doesn't know, and that's the point of sciecne, saying 'We don't know, so lets do our best to figure it out.'"

 

[Aepervius]

I am seriously getting depressed from this kind of nonsense.

The trick to NOT be depressed, is to expect the worst from humanity. Expect all people to be ignorant and religious fanatic.

Then when something good emerge from the dredge of life, you can be extactically goodly surprised.

And when some more non sense is floating up, you can shrug it as "business as usual".

 

[Psi Baba]

At first I just read the brief article below the video. That should have been enough. But no, I had to go back and click the link again and watch the damn video. The entire clip is only 1:43. I couldn't get past 1:21. Seriously, I stopped it at 1:21 and closed the window--I couldn't take another second. I didn't know it was possible to actually broadcast stupid! He has managed to convert stupid into a signal, send it out over the air, and beam it into our heads.

 

[Vorticity]

And now Bill O's question really makes sense: "Who put the moon there?" Answer: "The universe!"

However:

If you wish to make a satellite from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

 

[themusicteacher]

It makes no sense whatsoever to engage someone as ideological and asinine as Bill O'Reilly. No matter what explanation you might give him regarding something scientific or counter to his preconceived worldview, he will simply not accept those explanations. He has no intention of changing his mind or admitting he doesn't understand certain things (well, a lot of things). Being a right-wing blowhard propagandist, and getting rich doing it, it his only goal in life. Even if you could give him a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation where the moon comes from and how tides work, he still would question you. He has no interest and nothing to gain (in fact, he has a lot to lose) by agreeing with you or changing his position or acknowledging that he may not know enough to decide if you're right or not. He is the very definition of a fundamentalist anti-intellectual.

 

[Denver]

It makes no sense whatsoever to engage someone as ideological and asinine as Bill O'Reilly. No matter what explanation you might give him regarding something scientific or counter to his preconceived worldview, he will simply not accept those explanations. He has no intention of changing his mind or admitting he doesn't understand certain things (well, a lot of things). Being a right-wing blowhard propagandist, and getting rich doing it, it his only goal in life. Even if you could give him a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation where the moon comes from and how tides work, he still would question you. He has no interest and nothing to gain (in fact, he has a lot to lose) by agreeing with you or changing his position or acknowledging that he may not know enough to decide if you're right or not. He is the very definition of a fundamentalist anti-intellectual.

It is probably true that engaging O'Reilly will not change his opinions. But, since he is a public figure, those challenges are seen by many others. Not everyone in his audience will be of the same mind: some, like O'Reilly, will not be swayed. Others may be more open. Others may be on the fence. Others may allow a seed of rationalism in, which over time may grow.

So I think it does make sense to engage him, and all irrational propaganda. The alternative is to leave it unchallenged. And certainly nothing good will come from that.

 

[Bill Thompson]

he doesn't really challenge scientists to explain how the moon got there.

It just might be possible that at one time he was told or read how the moon got there and he basically had a brain fart and it has temporarily slipped his mind. His moon comment is a small part of his overal little video blog. But once again we are gleeful in our success of finding a sound byte we can take out of context from a right wing neocon and pat each other on the back for finding something that makes them look like idiots because the Left Wingers look like idiots 24-7.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

he doesn't really challenge scientists to explain how the moon got there.

It just might be possible that at one time he was told or read how the moon got there and he basically had a brain fart and it has temporarily slipped his mind. His moon comment is a small part of his overal little video blog. But once again we are gleeful in our success of finding a sound byte we can take out of context from a right wing neocon and pat each other on the back for finding something that makes them look like idiots because the Left Wingers look like idiots 24-7.

I made a completely cogent argument, addressing the whole of his video in context. That you've called it a strawman and then ignored my pointing out to you why it's not doesn't change the fact that that argument was made.

The irony of this, of course, is that it seems that you're far more interested in having a rant than you are in honestly debating the topic at hand - which is just what you're accusing everybody else in this thread of doing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

he doesn't really challenge scientists to explain how the moon got there.

It just might be possible that at one time he was told or read how the moon got there and he basically had a brain fart and it has temporarily slipped his mind. His moon comment is a small part of his overal little video blog. But once again we are gleeful in our success of finding a sound byte we can take out of context from a right wing neocon and pat each other on the back for finding something that makes them look like idiots because the Left Wingers look like idiots 24-7.

Insulting O'Reilly hit a nerve, eh?

Come on, O'Reilly's comment is utterly ridiculous and it isn't because someone took it out of context. We get it he is saying the Universe boggles his mind therefore God made it. The God of the Gaps has been a rationalization theists have used for centuries.

But to express Gap God evidence by saying, "no one can explain the tides and Moon" is especially ignorant. That's like saying there's still a Gap God after the gaps have been filled.

Your overgeneralization of both conservatives and liberals isn't worth comment.

 

[JoelKatz]

which God? Spinoza's God? Athiests use the biblical god, but that is a strawman argument. "godless universe" makes about as much sense to some as "natureless nature"

Atheists, at least the intelligent ones I've encountered, generally only use the biblical god when conversing with believers in that particular god. Otherwise, when they say they don't believe in god, they mean all possible gods, just as a believer does when they say "the only god I believe in is jesus/allah/jehovah/whatever".

To state the typical atheist position more precisely, it is a rejection of belief in anything they would consider a god if it existed or could exsit. If you say "god is Jehovah", they'll say "I don't believe in that God". If you say "god is the universe", they'll say "Of course I believe the universe exists, but I am unwilling to consider the universe God or a god".

On formulation might be: "Anything not supernatural, I am unwilling to consider a god. I do not believe anything supernatural exists."

 

[Vorticity]

"...I do not believe anything supernatural exists."

Ah. Kiri-Kin-Tha's first law of metaphysics.

 

[TraneWreck]

Unless the context was, "Here is what I would say if I were a dumbass______," it doesn't really help.

When the best interpretation is that you're breathlessly repeating an argument philosophers thought was dumb 400 years ago, you're not doing that well.

 

[GreyArea]

He's addressing a niche audience.

If anything, it's an aged niche. The best I can find for figures says that his median viewers were 63 in 2004, and 71 in 2006.

That's a lot of people who have not had to take a science class since before Sputnik and Explorer 1 were launched.

(Not that graduating in later years such as 1967 or 1982 would necessarily help.)

 

[The Norseman]

When the best interpretation is that you're breathlessly repeating an argument philosophers thought was dumb 400 years ago, you're not doing that well.

Totally sig-worthy. Well said!

 

[KingMerv00]

he doesn't really challenge scientists to explain how the moon got there.

It just might be possible that at one time he was told or read how the moon got there and he basically had a brain fart and it has temporarily slipped his mind. His moon comment is a small part of his overal little video blog. But once again we are gleeful in our success of finding a sound byte we can take out of context from a right wing neocon and pat each other on the back for finding something that makes them look like idiots because the Left Wingers look like idiots 24-7.

Bill O. said something mind-boggling stupid and ignorant. It is OK to call someone on that and I don't think it is just because he is Republican.

Bill Maher gets raked over the coals at times too. Do you think it's because he is a liberal?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Bill O. said something mind-boggling stupid and ignorant. It is OK to call someone on that and I don't think it is just because he is Republican.

Even worse, when I tell people I am generally a conservative, the first thing they usually say is "Oh, you must watch Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck". At which point I have to explain the difference between a conservative and an idiot. Beck/O'Reilly/Palin/etc are embarassments to true conservatives.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That is not what I said. Strawman arguement again.

You are forgetting the multiverse.

The last time I got roped into this kind of online discussion, the guy kept misquoting and misunderstanding what I was saying. I wasted a lot of time on some kid who thought his GED leveled the playing field. No one is worth my time going through all that again. So let me just say I congratulate you in knowing that God is not an invisible man in the sky. Did you figure that out all by yourself or did someone teach you? I am not here to educate you. I noticed you did not even bother looking up Spinoza before leaping to your keyboard to reply to me. God is that which no greater can be thought. The paintings in the sistine chapel might as well be Santa Claus.

Isn't this discussion thread about Bill O'? So start a new discussion thread and wait there for me to decide if I want to join you.

First playing the victim, then, uh... I don't know what, babbling about something irrelevant, and then you jump out. This really makes me confident in your ability to defend your position.

 

[sgtbaker]

he doesn't really challenge scientists to explain how the moon got there.

It just might be possible that at one time he was told or read how the moon got there and he basically had a brain fart and it has temporarily slipped his mind. His moon comment is a small part of his overal little video blog. But once again we are gleeful in our success of finding a sound byte we can take out of context from a right wing neocon and pat each other on the back for finding something that makes them look like idiots because the Left Wingers look like idiots 24-7.

No fair! He started it! He called us pinheads.

 

[KingMerv00]

Even worse, when I tell people I am generally a conservative, the first thing they usually say is "Oh, you must watch Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck". At which point I have to explain the difference between a conservative and an idiot. Beck/O'Reilly/Palin/etc are embarassments to true conservatives.

Aye. They canna be true conservatives. They eat their haggis arse end foost.

Beck,O'Reilly and Palin ARE conservative. They just happen to be idiots as well.