O'Reilley pwns Atheism

[swansont]

I'm guessing that if Silverman had had a laptop and an internet connection, he could have Googled for it, too. Then again, O'Reilly has been singularly lacking in curiosity about the tides for a while, and never bothered to check to see if anyone knew what caused them.

[Sisyphus]

Tripolation,

 

So suppose nobody had yet figured out what caused the tides. Would atheism be unjustified for everyone i.e., is that a gap that only a god could fill? If not (I assume not), why not? How is it different?

 

Also, I asked a number of questions in post #61 that weren't entirely rhetorical. Does it go both ways? Do I need to be able to explain subtleties of Christian theology before my opinion about a physics problem is valid? If not (I assume not), why not? How is it different?

 

You said that it is similar to how a knowledge of evolutionary biology is necessary before one's opinion about ID is valid, and that I agree with, because it's a biological question, and an understanding of biological principles would show why ID is fallacious. But I don't see a similar connection between Newtonian physics and religion, and indeed you agreed that it's not a physics question, so the analogy is not apt. Is it not enough to have a general refutation of God of the Gaps argument, without knowing precisely where those gaps are?

 

It seems to me the only argument you really have is that a basic explanation of the tides is such general knowledge that anyone who can't do it simply must be stupid in a general sense, and therefore not worth listening to. Yet you also said that that wasn't true, as with the "liberal arts major." (btw I was technically a liberal arts student, so screw you all.)

[A Tripolation]

Tripolation,

 

So suppose nobody had yet figured out what caused the tides. Would atheism be unjustified for everyone i.e., is that a gap that only a god could fill? If not (I assume not), why not? How is it different?

 

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't be in the same category of questions. It would have been like if Bill had asked Silverman for the solution to P vs NP. I wouldn't expect anyone to know that, or even be able to guess about it, except for a dedicated mathematician. Tides have been well explained for some time. I feel he should have known it. But in a world where tides are mysteries, atheism would still be justified. I do not think "Goddidit" is an acceptable answer for anything.

 

Also' date=' I asked a number of questions in post #61 that weren't entirely rhetorical. Does it go both ways? Do I need to be able to explain subtleties of Christian theology before my opinion about a physics problem is valid? If not (I assume not), why not? How is it different?

[/quote']

 

My apologies. I thought they were. And it is different, but there is no consistent explanation. It's just that someone who is going to call religions a scam needs to have, in my opinon, a firm background in maths and science.

 

You said that it is similar to how a knowledge of evolutionary biology is necessary before one's opinion about ID is valid' date=' and that I agree with, because it's a biological question, and an understanding of biological principles would show why ID is fallacious. But I don't see a similar connection between Newtonian physics and religion, and indeed you agreed that it's not a physics question, so the analogy is not apt. Is it not enough to have a general refutation of God of the Gaps argument, without knowing precisely where those gaps are?

[/quote']

I think God is a physics problem in some sense. I do not think he is testable yet. I see the connection between physics and religion as needing a physics background before you can fully appreciate religion, or discuss it and its implications. How can someone who does not understand the way we know the observable universe to work, fully appreciate the gravity of the religious claims that are made?

 

It seems to me the only argument you really have is that a basic explanation of the tides is such general knowledge that anyone who can't do it simply must be stupid in a general sense' date=' and therefore not worth listening to.

[/quote']

 

Yes. This is what I was saying.

 

Yet you also said that that wasn't true' date=' as with the "liberal arts major." (btw I was technically a liberal arts student, so screw you all.)

[/quote']

 

Ahahahahaha. +1 sir.

[caharris]

If we can dismiss what atheists say as long as they don't have a grad degree in math or physics, does that mean we can dismiss religious people as long as they don't have a grad degree in math or physics?

 

It's just that someone who is going to call religions a scam needs to have, in my opinon, a firm background in maths and science.

O'Rielly, and in fact most religious people (that I know, at least) don't have a firm background in math or science, should we henceforth ignore absolutely everything they has to say?

[A Tripolation]

If we can dismiss what atheists say as long as they don't have a grad degree in math or physics, does that mean we can dismiss religious people as long as they don't have a grad degree in math or physics?

 

 

O'Rielly, and in fact most religious people (that I know, at least) don't have a firm background in math or science, should we henceforth ignore absolutely everything they has to say?

 

If they try claiming physics or other religions are a scam, then yes, pretty much.