O'Reilly -Tides prove God!

[Ramirez]

Guess Bill never heard of the moon or gravity.

 

[Big Don]

Maybe, if the video you linked to wasn't so idiotically edited, your OP wouldn't look so childish?

 

[Archangel M]

Typical arrogant atheist *******.

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/1999/still1.html

Many of us nonbelievers are arrogant, incredibly arrogant, and in our single-minded attempt to engage in spiritual cleansing, we often forget that we have no more a monopoly on the truth than anyone else. Yet this reality does not seem to prevent some nonbelievers from howling their indignation loudly, bolstering their own sense of superiority by ridiculing those who believe in God. It is this rigid attitude that unites fundamentalist atheists with their religious cousins in that fundamentalist atheists are not content to revel in their own perfect worldview, but rather they must also prove others wrong in order for them to be right. It is this intellectual elitism that religious believers see when they glance behind them at those atheists who nip at their heels. In the end, this had led to a serious image problem for the rest of us for whom our atheism is not challenged by the coexistence of religious belief.

It is important to notice that Gore never once says that arrogant atheists are wrong for proclaiming their beliefs or even for proclaiming them passionately. Gore says that they are wrong for putting down others who do believe, and in that remark lies the rub. The result of denigrating the beliefs of others, no matter how silly they seem to us, is bigotry and intolerance.

I guess sometimes I can agree with Al Gore.

 

[billc]

If this guy puts on a uniform we better watch out. Atheists in uniforms are scary.

 

[Ramirez]

Maybe, if the video you linked to wasn't so idiotically edited, your OP wouldn't look so childish?

maybe if O'Reilly wasn't so breathtakingly ignorant then videos like that wouldn't be possible.

 

[chrispillertkd]

maybe if O'Reilly wasn't so breathtakingly ignorant then videos like that wouldn't be possible.

Totally. We should blame the other person, not the one doing the actual insulting.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

I also liked how David Silverman says he can't explain how the tides work :lol:

Pax,

Chris

 

[SensibleManiac]

It's a good thing that O'Reilly doesn't need to believe or understand gravity in order for it to work or else he'd really be in trouble.

The video is childish and obviously put out by someone who wants to provoke emotion as opposed to an enlightening debate.

I don't for a second propose to know and understand everything, but I know enough to see when someone is trying to appeal to emotion and not reason.

If you guys want to have a discussion based on reason I'm all for it, let's leave out the childishness for people like the editor of the video, O'Reilly and his guest.

I've never heard of problems arising because of too much compassion or reasoning. So as long as we can stick to that, a beneficial debate can occur.

 

[SensibleManiac]

I guess no one wants to look under this stone as we may uncover some truth?

 

[billc]

I'll be polite and bite at this one. Where did gravity come from? Where did the elements for the beginning of the universe come from?

 

[Blade96]

I'll be polite and bite at this one. Where did gravity come from? Where did the elements for the beginning of the universe come from?

No one knows. Its like saying well it started with the big bang, but there you have the question what made the big bang? If there's a god, well where did god come from? Soooo many interesting questions.

 

[SensibleManiac]

Gravity is a natural phenomenon in which objects with mass attract each other.
It is a very precise phenomenon that can be scientifically studied, there is nothing supernatural about it.
Where does it come from?
There is much we don't know about origins of natural phenomenon.
My argument is simply that because there are things we don't understand, (and there are many) that does not confirm or deny an existence of God, what does deny an existence of God is the profound lack of evidence in nature that the universe was created by a being.
Further than that there is no evidence whatsoever that an intelligent God wants us to believe in him.

If we look carefully at all religions we understand their limitations and that they really focus on control of groups of people and the continuation of the religious groups but there is actually very little concern for understanding the truth about the world around us.
I can say this because if we look closely at all the different faiths we see that they only change when they are forced to face truth because people can no longer deny the truth when there is evidence to support it.

There is much we don't know, it is estimated that approximately 73% of the matter and energy that exists in our universe is unknown, we call it dark matter and dark energy because we don't know exactly what it is and exactly how it functions.

That being said, the big bang happened when pressure built up from gases that caused an explosion that continues to expand the universe today.

If anyone wants some great reading on the natural phenomenon that happen in the universe I would suggest Michio Kaku's excellent books, Parallel Worlds and Visions are two of his best.Visions being about technology in the future.

In truth the more we understand about the complex world around us, the more complex it gets.

The thing is that the more we understand the less that which we understand points to a creator and more to an emergent understanding that the physical world is subjected to natural laws and effects.

There is nothing supernatural to it.

My biggest problem with belief systems is that they fall miserably short when compared to understanding.
When we understand, we are far better off then when we believe.
Belief does have it's place but let's look carefully at how it pales in comparison to understanding.
While belief does offer comfort, understanding offers potential solutions.
Belief in mythologies, (for example an arc that held pairs of all the animals in the world) stunts the ability to understand the world and the progress it can bring.
Human progress is gained through studying and understanding the evidence around us.
Not through accepting the world around us as supernatural in origin.
I feel it's a cop out to say that we'll we don't understand it so a God must have created it.
Let's further study to understand it, is a better response.

This isn't arrogance, It's embracing the seeking out of truth.

Isn't it arrogant to say that we know something when clearly we don't?
(Like saying I know that God exists)
I'm not saying that it's not ok have have your beliefs, you should be free to believe whatever you want. I'm just saying that when someone states that they know something, like the belief in their deity to be true, I have a right to question that.

If we are honest with ourselves and each other we quickly realize that our beliefs in superstitious deities or superstitions in general are based on fear and not reason or compassion.
Two of the most important factors in human progress. I can provide evidence for that if anyone actually needs it.

 

[Tanaka]

I'll be polite and bite at this one. Where did gravity come from? Where did the elements for the beginning of the universe come from?

I normally avoid these kinds of arguments and debates. But I am bored. As a human you're used to things you have seen on earth. For example, "The need for a cause and effect."
The way you are looking at gravity is kind of obscure to what gravity really is. Gravity basically a force caused by the curvature of spacetime. Masses that exist in spacetime also cause a curvature of it, but gravity is a very WEAK force.(Which may not be true in other parts of the universe, who knows?)
So in short, obviously gravity has existed ever since mass has existed. And if someone where to believe matter and energy have always existed. Then one could say gravity has always existed; it just wasn't what it was until after Big Bang.(Which is where time began).

 

[Tanaka]

As for the video, I am Atheist and I would have to agree that video was stupid due to the horrible editing. I could not understand the point that O'Reily was trying to make because of all the dumb things that were going on.

 

[granfire]

As for the video, I am Atheist and I would have to agree that video was stupid due to the horrible editing. I could not understand the point that O'Reily was trying to make because of all the dumb things that were going on.

I have tried a few times to understand a point O'Reilly is trying to make, even with no editing, it's not easy....

 

[Nomad]

OK, I can't see the video in question because of restrictions from Youtube at work, but I did see the Colbert Report the other night where O'Reilly made this claim (multiple times over the course of several months), and thought it was pretty hilarious.

The corollary of "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is just because you can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't a completely rational explanation for it...

Personally, I think the entire Religion VERSUS Science thing is a ridiculous argument in the first place, though it obviously has a long tradition, looking at the church's response to men from Copernicus & Galileo to Darwin. There is no reason why belief in science excludes religion or vice versa.

 

[granfire]

OK, I can't see the video in question because of restrictions from Youtube at work, but I did see the Colbert Report the other night where O'Reilly made this claim (multiple times over the course of several months), and thought it was pretty hilarious.

The corollary of "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is just because you can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't a completely rational explanation for it...

Personally, I think the entire Religion VERSUS Science thing is a ridiculous argument in the first place, though it obviously has a long tradition, looking at the church's response to men from Copernicus & Galileo to Darwin. There is no reason why belief in science excludes religion or vice versa.

But you are taking the logical approach...

 

[Empty Hands]

There is no reason why belief in science excludes religion or vice versa.

If you rigorously apply the scientific method to all of your thinking and beliefs (granted, no one does this) then you cannot be religious. The scientific method requires us not to grant certainty to that which has no evidence. At best, you could be "agnostic" about religion. It cuts the other way too, since a religious person who applies the scientific method to their beliefs will come up with some uncomfortable conclusions. Those who adhere to both tend to compartmentalize their beliefs into a different category that doesn't get the same scientific standards applied to it. This isn't limited to religion either.

 

[Rayban]

My signature kinda says it all.

I'm probably one of the most atheist people you will ever meet... read... whatever.

But just because I don't believe in god or any paranormal phenomena for that matter (I like proof), doesn't mean I have any right at all to verbally bash someone's religion which, lamentably, most atheists do. Everyone has the freedom to believe what they want in their own mind, its a fundamental part of being a sentient being. The thing I hate about religion, especially institutionalized religion is that they try to scrub out one of the most important words ever thought of. "WHY". Debate is healthy and it promotes new ideas and new points of view. I know that if someone was to show me proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that a god existed, I would believe.

Rowan Atkinson said it best

"To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."