HP: O'Reilly: God Causes The Tides, Not The Moon

[IONTOP]

....... Double post

[techboy]

Excellent work. I will immediately be adding "tides, dummy" to my line-up of good arguments for the existence of God.

[joeknows]

I tend to find many atheists to be that way. They say you cannot prove there is a God you are an idiot for thinking there is one but then you can't prove that there isn't one either. Why is being so sure that there is one worse than being so sure that there isn't? I never god that.

i see your point without a doubt but my guess is the persecution non believers have to deal with all the time. most atheist i have ever known NEVER even mention religion unless asked... and yet those that arent christian or dont believe get thumped by believers all the time. i DO believe in God but i am certainly not Christian.... and living in the bible belt of the south i get sick of the constant crap with these churches here. i just get sick of it. to me religion is personal and should remain so. if i want to adopt your christian beliefs then i will. this isnt 500 a.d. where i need someone to spread the word to me. if i want to know more about Christianity there are a million avenues i can take to get that information.

and for gods sake quit knocking on my damned door at 830 am on saturday morning to invite me to a church i will never attend. one of these days im gonna sick all 500 lbs + of my dogs on them!!!

[China]

Excellent work. I will immediately be adding "tides, dummy" to my line-up of good arguments for the existence of God.

Well, if you can limit it to "tides, dummy" that will cut down siginificantly on on the cutting and pasting you do.

[nonniey]

Oh no I do not like it either way I think people should be left alone to their own beliefs and I don't like either side doing it. The reason I made this comment was in response to the poster who said that the guy seemed like a douche, and to me he does too. His whole posting these signs and billboards to me is dumb and pointless and does nothing to further the debate. I have found many atheists to be like this guy but I am sure many religious people are the same.

This is just atheistic evangelizing. And yet they still claim not to be religious, go figure.

[Riggo-toni]

Atheists should take a page from Votlaire's playbook and rail against intolerance rather than belief.

[Corcaigh]

Well, if you can limit it to "tides, dummy" that will cut down siginificantly on on the cutting and pasting you do.

Don't be so sure. The Wikipedia entry for 'Tides' is very lengthy and includes 54 references.

[jnhay]

Oh no I do not like it either way I think people should be left alone to their own beliefs and I don't like either side doing it. The reason I made this comment was in response to the poster who said that the guy seemed like a douche, and to me he does too. His whole posting these signs and billboards to me is dumb and pointless and does nothing to further the debate. I have found many atheists to be like this guy but I am sure many religious people are the same.

Sorry, didn't intend to make it sound like I was forming an opinion about you. Your quote just made me think.

[Predicto]

We agnostics mock all of you.

[Corcaigh]

We agnostics mock all of you.

Are you sure?

[shk75]

Sorry, didn't intend to make it sound like I was forming an opinion about you. Your quote just made me think.

Oh no don't worry I did not take it that way at all and I think you made a very fair point. It is true that since I do believe in God I sometimes view atheists unfairly when I am sure those on my side do the exact same thing.

[polywog999]

I don't understand for a second the validity of such an asinine argument. You can almost precisely measure the hight of the tides by the position and distance of the sun and moon. How does "God" figure in?

O'Reily is using an antiquated method of debate, that is predicated upon a lack of understanding of how things work. "There must be a god.....just look at how beautiful the world is!" The world is beautiful because we grew up in it. If we were from Mars, we would think huge volcanoes and black skies were pretty!

[Stadium-Armory]

I can't believe I'm about to (in part) defend this guy, but I think he means that something so complex and timely as the tides could only have been created by God. But not that God actually makes it happen on a daily basis, like taking out the trash.

Watching stuff like that always makes me wonder if either the atheists or believers see how similar their positions are. Both don't "know" the answer, and since the other can't prove anything either, they both think they're right.

As an agnostic, both positions seem flawed to me, but at least the atheists recognize that the path to understanding is through science - and on this point I agree. But to say that there is no possibility of a higher power seems like a leap that they can't back up -- which is ironically what they charge of the believers.

And around it goes..

[polywog999]

I can't believe I'm about to (in part) defend this guy, but I think he means that something so complex and timely as the tides could only have been created by God. But not that God actually makes it happen on a daily basis, like taking out the trash.

Watching stuff like that always makes me wonder if either the atheists or believers see how similar their positions are. Both don't "know" the answer, and since the other can't prove anything either, they both think they're right.

As an agnostic, both positions seem flawed to me, but at least the atheists recognize that the path to understanding is through science - and on this point I agree. But to say that there is no possibility of a higher power seems like a leap that they can't back up -- which is ironically what they charge of the believers.

And around it goes..

I am very religious myself, but the whole argument makes no sense. We already know for a fact that tides are caused by gravitational pull. Now if the sky cracked open and God himself said that he was reversing the tide to punish us or something, then I could get behind him (O'Reily). Until then, he is a kook of the first order.

[techboy]

but at least the atheists recognize that the path to understanding is through science

Science is a path to understanding/knowledge.

It is not, however, the path to understanding/knowledge, if for no other reason than this idea itself, at least, cannot be proven to be true through science. That would be a circular argument. Pure scientism is literally self-refuting.

Philosophers, at the very least, need not fear for their jobs even if we kick out the theologians.

[Teller]

Kinda funny. I was just thinking about this today. And while O'Reilly's little statement there seems pretty foolish, I think mankind is a pretty good argument for the existence of God.

Look at your computer. Pretty complex, right? Would you be willing to tell me that there are circumstances that could just naturally occur over time and create it, exactly as it is? Molecules crashing together and whatnot? I doubt it. But you're willing to tell me that life happened that way? That mankind was created and has, yes, evolved, into what we are just by some sort of random dumb luck?

Further, have you ever watched something, anything, die? Have you looked into its eyes at that exact moment when its life ends? Something besides the ceasing of bodily function happens then. I can't explain it without making religious references that I don't want to use right now, but IMO, it's absolutely true.

Just to be clear, I'm a "guided evolutionist." That is to say that I believe in evolution, 100%. But I also believe that God created everything, and guides everything along His chosen path. I don't expect, nor ask, that anyone else believe that. I respect the opinions of everyone in this realm; believers and non-believers alike. And IMHO, that's where we go wrong. Instead of respecting each other's opinions, one side shouts "you're going to hell." The other side shouts, "you're an idiot." And no one learns or grows. And THAT is why I also believe free will is an indisputable fact.

[Stadium-Armory]

Science is a path to understanding/knowledge.

It is not, however, the path to understanding/knowledge, if for no other reason than this idea itself, at least, cannot be proven to be true through science. That would be a circular argument. Pure scientism is literally self-refuting.

Philosophers, at the very least, need not fear for their jobs even if we kick out the theologians.

I don't fully have my head around what you're saying, help me understand. 1+1 is surely 2, I think. As much as anything can be proven as evident through observation, this can, can it not?

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 07:02 PM ----------

I respect the opinions of everyone in this realm; believers and non-believers alike. And IMHO, that's where we go wrong. Instead of respecting each other's opinions, one side shouts "you're going to hell." The other side shouts, "you're an idiot." And no one learns or grows. And THAT is why I also believe free will is an indisputable fact.

I wonder though, for arguments sake, how far is reasonable. Should I respect a religion that hates women? Or should I call it out as wrong - as I see it. At some point, injustice veiled in religion needs to be called out for what it is. I think the taboo about calling out things that are wrong, even if they are someone's beliefs needs to be reexamined.

Certainly its a judgement call, trying to define what is right and what is wrong, and I'll just say that I look to my gut for guidance. If I see someone stone a woman for adultery, in the name of religion, I call that religion out.

For the record, I'm not calling you a murdering misogynist.

[twa]

I don't fully have my head around what you're saying, help me understand. 1+1 is surely 2, I think. As much as anything anything can be proven through observation, this can, can it not?

But what happens when your observation changes things?

Philosophers have all the answers...and more questions

[Teller]

I wonder though, for arguments sake, how far is reasonable. Should I respect a religion that hates women? Or should I call it out as wrong - as I see it. At some point, injustice veiled in religion needs to be called out for what it is. I think the taboo about calling out things that are wrong, even if they are someone's beliefs needs to be reexamined.

Certainly its a judgement call, trying to define what is right and what is wrong, and I'll just say that I look to my gut for guidance. If I see someone stone a woman for adultery, in the name of religion, I call that religion out.

For the record, I'm not calling you a murdering misogynist.

Well, thanks for that. I do what I can.

But seriously, I was strictly making a small argument for the existence of God. That's all. I wasn't trying to make a judgment on any particular religion's customs or practices. I just have a hard time believing that some of the things we see everyday could have happened simply by chance.

Also, I've studied a few different religions pretty deeply, and faced quite a conundrum when I got married. My ex refused to even consider my church (should have been a warning sign, I know. I was young. lol.) But when I got into studying hers, that "gut" you mentioned twisted up like you wouldn't believe. As desperately as I wanted my family to attend church together, I simply could not abandon what I feel in my gut, my soul, if you will, and become a member of her church.

Religion can be a source of a lot of heartache, and has been used as an excuse for some people to do some seriously vile things. I think good people can criticize, when their gut tells them something is wrong, and should not be vilified for that.

[Mad Mike]

Strange dude. When he is right, he's right. There are times when he shows common sense and I believe he is more balanced than most people give him credit for. But when he is wrong, he is often spectacularly wrong. And the crazy thing is it can change from moment to moment. LOL.

[Unforgiven]

Stephen Colbert is going to do a piece on this tonight apparently. Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist) tweeted "MEDIA ALERT. Cameo appearance tonight on Colbert Report. Be there. SUBJECT: A skit on Bill O'Reilly being mystified by tides."

[techboy]

I don't fully have my head around what you're saying, help me understand. 1+1 is surely 2, I think.

Yes, but this is another example (science itself being the first) of something that cannot be proven through science. That's math.

You might think that math is a given, but believe it or not, there's a rather serious controversy in philosophical circles as to the nature of abstract concepts like numbers. Does "three", for instance, exist independently of any particular reality (would "three" exist even if nothing physical did?), or is it contingent upon something else?

This, like a lot of philosophy, is something that you can easily get by in your day to day life without ever thinking about, but it doesn't mean you're not going outside of the boundaries of science for knowledge.

As much as anything can be proven as evident through observation, this can, can it not?

There's another classic idea that cannot be established by science. Can we trust our senses?

We all operate (well, most of us anyway) under the premise that we can, but science can't prove it, because we'd have to use our senses to run any experiment, and obviously if they're flawed, so are any results.

Or should I call it out as wrong - as I see it. At some point, injustice veiled in religion needs to be called out for what it is.

And yet another avenue of knowledge that absolutely cannot be determined by science- the moral realm. You simply can't construct a repeatable trial which will tell us whether female circumscision is wrong, for example, or whether charity is good. Science doesn't work that way.

I notice, though, that this doesn't stop you from acquiring moral knowledge or making moral judgements.

It's possible to quibble over the process by which we do this, but without a doubt it certainly ain't science.

Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist) tweeted "MEDIA ALERT. Cameo appearance tonight on Colbert Report. Be there. SUBJECT: A skit on Bill O'Reilly being mystified by tides."

That should be awesome.

I love Colbert, and deGrasse Tyson is a very entertaining guy as well.

[SWFLSkins]

I tend to find many atheists to be that way. They say you cannot prove there is a God you are an idiot for thinking there is one but then you can't prove that there isn't one either. Why is being so sure that there is one worse than being so sure that there isn't? I never god that.

Not quite the way I understand it. Atheist don't believe God is possible, Agnostic's acknowledge there is the possibility but it remains unproven. My brother cleared me up on that and I can't quite find an argument against it otherthan faith and the unexplainable experiences that I have had.

[nuposse87]

Not quite the way I understand it. Atheist don't believe God is possible, Agnostic's acknowledge there is the possibility but it remains unproven. My brother cleared me up on that and I can't quite find an argument against it otherthan faith and the unexplainable experiences that I have had.

I think you can sub-classify atheists as well though. There are some that actively believe that there is no god, and than there are others like me, who have a lack of belief in a deity. I guess that makes me a "passive atheist?" The watchmaker argument I think is what Bill O might be trying to get at, but its not a good one. I think you run into infinite regression problem with that argument if i'm not mistaken. Someone correct me if I am.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Two points here.

First, science is real.

.

Second, science can't really prove anything, ever. We can disprove things using experimental observation (such as "all cats are white"). But we can never, beyond a doubt, prove a scientific law (such as E=mc^2) or even an observation congruent with previous experience (such as "the Sun will rise tomorrow").

But that certainly hasn't stopped science from being bloody useful for us.