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

[Toontown]

No. You are making a classic mistake akin to Zeno's paradox.

[/derail]

You mean this?

"Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go."

It seems to me that Zeno's paradoxes are actually classic mistakes, rather than paradoxes, repeatedly disproved every day. The truth is, Achilles will reach everywhere the tortoise has been, plus places the tortoise has not been, after passing the tortoise like faster cars pass slower ones on the highways every day.

None of which has much to do with the difficulty of counting to infinity. Especially if you never even started counting.

 

[Shrike]

 

[kerikiwi]

Uh...because he didn't say "we can't explain how the moon got there or how the tides work" and imply that those were proof of God's existence?

Neither did O'Reilly. He made it quite clear he knows that the moon affects the tides. His argument is the infinite regress one: go far enough back and rather than 'we don't know' it's a god.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Neither did O'Reilly. He made it quite clear he knows that the moon affects the tides. His argument is the infinite regress one: go far enough back and rather than 'we don't know' it's a god.

Then that's just as clear a distinction, but I still apologize for misreading O'Reilly's argument.

 

[Upchurch]

Neither did O'Reilly.

Yes, he did. He very specifically did. Multiple times.

Only when he finally got called on it did he back track to his lame god of the gaps argument. And with an extra dash of Bill O'Reilly class, he issued personal attacks on those who pointed out the flaw in his argument.

 

[deepatrax]

O'Reilly speaks, Liberals whine...and the Earth, which Obama believes is God's creation, will go on a spinnin'!

 

[thaiboxerken]

O'Reilly speaks, Liberals whine...and the Earth, which Obama believes is God's creation, will go on a spinnin'!

Pointing out the stupidity of O'Reilly's arguments and "facts" is not equivalent to "whining."

 

[Halfcentaur]

Why do some people look at politics like it's a matter of 2 teams they have to choose sides with, blindly dismissing the other team while cheering on their own like a mindless hooligan? I know all kinds of people who despise O'reilly. I also can't think of one politician in office who publicly announces being anything but a Christian. I'm sure there must be a few who don't pretend to be Christians, surely. Shirley?

 

[Eric D]

[qimg]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/memes-advice-oreilly-fridge-light.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/memes-advice-oreilly-bread-goes-in.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/memes-advice-oreilly-washing-machine.jpg[/qimg]

Hahahaha!

 

[Eric D]

O'Reilly speaks, Liberals whine...and the Earth, which Obama believes is God's creation, will go on a spinnin'!

O'Reilly says something demonstrably false and he gets called on it, conservatives whine.

 

[funk de fino]

I love the USA. It has lots of nuts like O'Reilly who make me giggle.

This would have been genius parody.

 

[deepatrax]

deepatrax,

What's your opinion of Bill O's comments? Please do not refer to Obama in your response.

O'Reilly seems to be more of a strict theist than others who see no exclusion and contradiction between Religion and Science.

No big deal to me.

There are literally BILLIONS of people in the World who believe like Bill does or believe in something even further down the strict theist scale.

 

[Thunder]

There are literally BILLIONS of people in the World who believe like Bill does or believe in something even further down the strict theist scale.

and those billions of people, are wrong. very wrong.

tides and the moon is not "evidence" of God.

 

[dudalb]

Not particularly clever. It's a false equivalency between someone's (in the case, Obama's) belief in a god and a very shaky god of the gaps argument claiming to objectively prove that a god exists.


I really have no problem if someone wants to believe in a god. What I do have a problem with is if they act on that belief in a way that is harmful to others. To my knowledge, hasn't done this.

The issue is not that O Reilly believes in God, but that he made a really stupid argument for the existence of God, one that most Theologians would laugh at for it's silliness.

 

[Juniversal]

Why do some people look at politics like it's a matter of 2 teams they have to choose sides with, blindly dismissing the other team while cheering on their own like a mindless hooligan? I know all kinds of people who despise O'reilly. I also can't think of one politician in office who publicly announces being anything but a Christian. I'm sure there must be a few who don't pretend to be Christians, surely. Shirley?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tribalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism



Many tribes refer to themselves with their language's word for "people," while referring to other, neighboring tribes with various epithets. For example, the term "Inuit" translates as "people," but they were known to the Ojibwe by a name 'Eskimo' translating roughly as "eaters of raw meat." This fact is often cited as evidence that tribal peoples saw only the members of their own tribe as "people," and denigrated all others as something less. In fact, this is a tenuous conclusion to draw from the evidence. Many languages refined their identification as "the true people," or "the real people," dehumanizing the other people or simply considering them inferior.

 

[thaiboxerken]

it's funny...that you think a person's BELIEF in God requires evidence!

And until that evidence is presented to you, you'll dismiss it as "stupid and silly"

that's good stuff!

When a person claims that belief to be factual, or true, it certainly does require evidence. Otherwise, I simply won't believe it too.

 

[deepatrax]

When a person claims that belief to be factual, or true, it certainly does require evidence. Otherwise, I simply won't believe it too.

nobody is gonna lose any sleep knowing that they failed to convince you of their own beliefs, thaiboxerken.

 

[thaiboxerken]

nobody is gonna lose any sleep knowing that they failed to convince you of their own beliefs, thaiboxerken.

But they should, knowing that they have nothing of substance to support their superstitious beliefs. It's not just me that will remain unconvinced, but most rational and intelligent people. This isn't to say rational and intelligent people are atheist, but rational and intelligent theists understand that there is no scientific or rational evidence of their gods.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Getting back to the thread....

The trouble is that O'Reilly's comments are not subject to the limit of our understanding or a different point of view. They are a denial of some pretty basic scientific facts about our universe.

Obama's comment doesn't apply here.

O'Reilly is making the classic argument to ignorance. It would be stupid whether is was an argument God exists or an argument about something else.

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an intelligent creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an intelligent creator prove that it isn't.

The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can prey on wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.

 

[Upchurch]

O'Reilly is making the classic argument to ignorance. It would be stupid whether is was an argument God exists or an argument about something else.

Noting that the two are not mutually exclusive, O'Reilly is, as I said, also making a god of the gaps argument as well.