O'Reilley pwns Atheism

[ydoaPs]

Theism must be true because atheists can't explain the tides.

 

[A Tripolation]

I think it's sad the emissary of atheists didn't know why the tides go in and out. And don't say it was because he was confused. I could answer that if someone drug me out of the bed at four A.M.

 

A side note though, this is why I (along with others) consider Atheism a religion. They're erecting billboards... They're proselytizing. They're trying to change how people believe. That's what religions do. If they wanted everyone to be better-educated, then they would spend their money funding schools or bills that would improve our educational system...not making billboards.

Edited January 8, 2011 by A Tripolation

[ydoaPs]

They're erecting billboards... They're proselytizing. They're trying to change how people believe. That's what religions do.

So, gay rights is a religion?

 

 

Apparently Bill has used this line several times before: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson

 

"Neil Degrasse Tyson is GOD!!!!" <= sounds about right.

Edited January 8, 2011 by ydoaPs

[ParanoiA]

Why is it that believers in god can throw out arbitrary natural phenomenon and demand on-the-spot explanation by non-believers and then use their ignorance as proof they're wrong - yet non-believers can in turn question arbitrary god phenomenon to which believers cite ignorance (ie..god works in mysterious ways) and somehow it's *not* proof that *they're* wrong?

 

I guess what I'm saying is..if it's valid to assume someone is wrong upon being stumped by a sidewinder then why doesn't this work both ways? I've asked literally hundreds of questions about god and nature throughout my life that were answered with shrugs and appeals to superior supernatural intelligence. Yet I never thought that was proof they were wrong.

 

If we were required to understand everything about something before we believed in it, we would believe nothing. No one knows everything about anything. Everyone is ignorant about some of everything, at the very least. If I merely have to stump you to prove you wrong, then I can prove all of you wrong about everything.

[jackson33]

Yeah, I watched O'Reilly (a devout Catholic) that night, miss few of his shows and I rarely miss, Glen BecK (A Christian Mormon) on Fox or the Rush Limbaugh (Christian) Radio show and the one thing that stands out is the lack of science knowledge. What does stand out in these cases, along with hundreds of others is their Patriotism to Country and their benevolent attitudes toward mankind.

 

While it also surprised me Silverman, an advocate for Atheism and should know basic science, the antonym of Religion in many ways and couldn't give the standard Moon/Solar effects on tides, was a bit of a surprise. However I'd suggest 90% of all people, educated or not are also ignorant on this and most everyone is, to what all is involved.

 

Playing to peoples emotions to change things according to an agenda IMO, all take on a religious tone.

 

While David Silverman or any advocate may not believe in a God or deity, without another purpose in mind, whatever that might be, to advocate for or against anything must have a purpose. His (Silverman) said purpose is that people are being mis-lead, but I'd bet he has other reasons, none of which necessarily involve Religion.

 

Silverman has only been President of the "American Atheist" organization since September 2010, but the group has a long history, back to Madalyn Murray O'Hair, literally the God Mother of the modern Atheist Movement.

 

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

 

If any of you are interested in the history of Judicial Activism or Atheism roots in the American Society, you might like reading Ms. OHair's, wiki bio....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

[Sisyphus]

Why is it that believers in god can throw out arbitrary natural phenomenon and demand on-the-spot explanation by non-believers and then use their ignorance as proof they're wrong - yet non-believers can in turn question arbitrary god phenomenon to which believers cite ignorance (ie..god works in mysterious ways) and somehow it's *not* proof that *they're* wrong?

 

I guess what I'm saying is..if it's valid to assume someone is wrong upon being stumped by a sidewinder then why doesn't this work both ways? I've asked literally hundreds of questions about god and nature throughout my life that were answered with shrugs and appeals to superior supernatural intelligence. Yet I never thought that was proof they were wrong.

 

If we were required to understand everything about something before we believed in it, we would believe nothing. No one knows everything about anything. Everyone is ignorant about some of everything, at the very least. If I merely have to stump you to prove you wrong, then I can prove all of you wrong about everything.

 

I agree with you completely. But I should point out that the situation here is not even that. O'Reilly isn't asking a question about atheism, he's asking a question about physics. This makes no sense unless he's implying that all of science falls under the category of "atheism," which adds a couple extra layers of ridiculous.

 

Of course, that particular framing is hardly unusual. "You personally can't fully explain cosmological inflation theory? So why aren't you a Christian?"

[D H]

This makes no sense unless he's implying that all of science falls under the category of "atheism," which adds a couple extra layers of ridiculous.

You haven't listened much to O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, have you? We scientists and engineers are useless idiots to them. While we do spout utter nonsense such as a scientific explanation of the tides, we do create these neat tools that they use to spread their version of the truth ... or at least what little bit of the truth that their little minds can comprehend.

 

 

 

[A Tripolation]

So, gay rights is a religion?

 

No. It's a doctrine though. I don't see it as a religion because it's not about god(s). Atheism is. And they are very dogmatic. A few are even hateful in their disdain of religion.

 

Of course, that particular framing is hardly unusual. "You personally can't fully explain cosmological inflation theory? So why aren't you a Christian?"

 

In your experience, is that framing common? Most of my theist friends are intelligent enough to know how easily that can be turned against them. EG, Where did God come from? Is that the norm for Christians you know?

[ydoaPs]

No. It's a doctrine though. I don't see it as a religion because it's not about god(s). Atheism is.

The billboards aren't about god(s) as much as they use religion as a vehicle for their point. The real message is hope; hope for the hidden. They're trying to make people know that they're not alone in not believing. They want people to know it's ok to 'come out' as an atheist. The gay rights comparison is very apt. You didn't originally claim it was a religion because it was about god(s), but because of their methods.

 

The secondary purpose of the billboards is to attempt to have people stop and think. They want you to actually critically think about your religion. They even want you to examine the automatic unearned respect opinions get once you say they're part of your religion.

 

Which billboard(s) do you find objectionable and why?

 

 

And they are very dogmatic.

They are? Perhaps you could provide some of the dogma then.

 

Nah, I'll do it for you. Given P as the set of all people and T as the subset of P which contains all theists, atheists are A where A=P-T. That's it. That's all they necessarily in common. Atheism cannot be a religion, because there are no doctrines. There are new agist atheists, rationalist atheists, anti-realist atheists, Buddhist atheists, and even solipsist atheists.

 

There's even debate among what it even means to be an atheist; some atheists aren't content with the above general definition and claim that you're only an atheist if you claim that no gods exist.

 

Atheism isn't a worldview; it is a metaphysical response that informs a worldview.

[A Tripolation]

The gay rights comparison is very apt. You didn't originally claim it was a religion because it was about god(s)' date=' but because of their methods.

[/quote']

 

True, but I didn't think you would be so pedantic about it. Of course I do not consider it a religion if someone buys a billboard to get people to eat at a certain business. To think I meant that is being overly linear, and just nit-picking at small subtleties. This is part of why I dislike having religions conversations with you, even though I think you make interesting arguments.

 

Atheism cannot be a religion' date=' because there are no doctrines.

[/quote']

 

I think that fellow atheist "Just the Facts" actions would contradict your statement. I understand he is a minority, but there are still atheists with dogma.

[ydoaPs]

I think that fellow atheist "Just the Facts" actions would contradict your statement. I understand he is a minority, but there are still atheists with dogma.

An idiot troll means atheists are dogmatic? I'm thinking there might be some confirmation bias going on here. How, exactly does said troll contradict what I said?

[A Tripolation]

An idiot troll means atheists are dogmatic? I'm thinking there might be some confirmation bias going on here. How, exactly does said troll contradict what I said?

 

It could be confirmation bias. I just know that the majority of atheists I've talked to have responded to my theism with a certain amount of vitriol that is unbecoming of a "logical" person.

 

You say it's a worldview. That there are no principals. But in my experience, most view theists as inherently inferior, intellectually. Or they think we are emotionally susceptible to touchy-feel-good garbage. A lot of preconceived notions. So basically, a superiority complex.

[ydoaPs]

It could be confirmation bias.

Yes, yes it could.

 

I just know that the majority of atheists I've talked to have responded to my theism with a certain amount of vitriol that is unbecoming of a "logical" person.

And that's a sample size of?

 

Golly, you know, if we can go by anecdotes and confirmation bias, I guess we can say that theists ARE idiots. I mean, I've read a few hundred posts at CARM, so that sample size should be enough. Oh, wait....

[Marat]

A better question would have been: If an Intelligent Designer of the universe does not exist, then why does the ocean always only begin at the coastline?

[Mr Skeptic]

I just know that the majority of atheists I've talked to have responded to my theism with a certain amount of vitriol that is unbecoming of a "logical" person.

 

I suspect that the majority of the atheists you've talked to, didn't respond to your theism at all. It's not like being an atheist means that they automatically care what you believe enough to try to convince you to change your mind.

[ydoaPs]

I suspect that the majority of the atheists you've talked to, didn't respond to your theism at all. It's not like being an atheist means that they automatically care what you believe enough to try to convince you to change your mind.

That's a great point. +rep to you, sir.

[A Tripolation]

Golly, you know, if we can go by anecdotes and confirmation bias, I guess we can say that theists ARE idiots. I mean, I've read a few hundred posts at CARM, so that sample size should be enough. Oh, wait....

 

If that's what you choose to believe. Have fun.

 

I suspect that the majority of the atheists you've talked to, didn't respond to your theism at all. It's not like being an atheist means that they automatically care what you believe enough to try to convince you to change your mind.

 

Not necessarily, but they did repeatedly ask me to "listen to reason". I supposed I should've written, "atheists in a religious debate about a supreme creator".

[ydoaPs]

If that's what you choose to believe. Have fun.

 

 

 

Not necessarily, but they did repeatedly ask me to "listen to reason". I supposed I should've written, "atheists in a religious debate about a supreme creator".

[A Tripolation]

[Mr Skeptic]

Not necessarily, but they did repeatedly ask me to "listen to reason". I supposed I should've written, "atheists in a religious debate about a supreme creator".

 

Or perhaps you should have written, "people taking the side of the atheist in a religious debate". How do you know whether they are in fact atheist or not, maybe they're playing the devil's advocate. And in any case, if you do make that restriction then you remove any support you offered on your position that atheists act like religious people. Are you willing to also restrict that claim to only atheists debating religion?

[jimmydasaint]

I am not taking sides here, but a comment, please. IMHO, Atheists, Theists, Deists, have the right for free speech. It is our basic human right. However, although we have the right to treat each other with disdain, we should not use this right to mock the deeply held beliefs of another person. The erecting of a billboard to advertise religion as a scam is, at best, disdainful and, at worst, an ill-thought out move. The interviewer in the O.P. used a crude, playground, method, to put down Silverman. However, he did have a right to respond to being treated with disdain.

[swansont]

I am not taking sides here, but a comment, please. IMHO, Atheists, Theists, Deists, have the right for free speech. It is our basic human right. However, although we have the right to treat each other with disdain, we should not use this right to mock the deeply held beliefs of another person. The erecting of a billboard to advertise religion as a scam is, at best, disdainful and, at worst, an ill-thought out move. The interviewer in the O.P. used a crude, playground, method, to put down Silverman. However, he did have a right to respond to being treated with disdain.

 

This would seem to discount the disdain one might feel at the myriad religious advertisements one sees during the course of a day. Someone on a streetcorner with a sign telling me I will burn in hell is insulting me. Why isn't there, or shouldn't there be, a level playing field?

[rigney]

You haven't listened much to O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, have you? We scientists and engineers are useless idiots to them. While we do spout utter nonsense such as a scientific explanation of the tides, we do create these neat tools that they use to spread their version of the truth ... or at least what little bit of the truth that their little minds can comprehend.

 

DH, Evidently you are a great advocate of the Mr. Ed Show. You know, the "Horses A--" on MSNBC? Visceral hatred is hard to comprehend, coming from such a learned person. And he calls FOX NEWS folks a bunch of nut cases? C'mon! And really coach, you aren't showing me much, if you; (WE Scientists and Engineers") latch on to Bill's jargon? I'd love to have his money! Wouldn't you? Edited January 9, 2011 by rigney

[Sisyphus]

In your experience, is that framing common?

 

Yes, extremely. You hear God of the Gaps arguments any time there are such "debates" about atheism. You hear it from public figures trying to get intelligent design into public schools, or from people like O'Reilly or Palin or televangelists. You see it in all the marathon hundreds-post-long threads right here on SFN from creationist trolls, both generally "nobody's figured this out yet, therefore a wizard did it" and the personal level as a debating strategy, choosing to specifically engage those who are less educated and less careful debaters, as if stumping one person were evidence of anything.

[rigney]

This would seem to discount the disdain one might feel at the myriad religious advertisements one sees during the course of a day. Someone on a streetcorner with a sign telling me I will burn in hell is insulting me. Why isn't there, or shouldn't there be, a level playing field?

 

Doesn't work quite like that Mr. T. The guy with a sign standing on the corner may have an IQ just above snail. You? You are an intellectual with remarkable skills and power. Someone other than he may have written the sign because of his inadequacy. Feel blessed, not angry. The playing field? Even scooped to basement level, is of our own choosing.