Forums » Off-Topic
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/573665-bill-o-reilly-vs-david-silverman-you-know-they-re-all-scams
Watch this. Priceless. watch until he says the name of this thread.
Watch this. Priceless. watch until he says the name of this thread.
This should be in "off-topic".
However, even though O'Reilly is pretty dumb in the segment, it is an insulting message from the atheist group. O'Reilly does have that one.
However, even though O'Reilly is pretty dumb in the segment, it is an insulting message from the atheist group. O'Reilly does have that one.
Um, sorry, I meant for this to be in off topic. I guess I mixed this up between Ryan's coronation and O'Reilly's stupidity. :P
Silverman can't even explain his points. He's the one that looks stupid... saying so many people attending Church are really atheists, and then saying he doesn't know why they attend. O'Reilly isn't being stupid by saying 'the tide goes in and out.' He means we have absolutely no proof of any theory about how gravity works, and his analogy was that there are so many unexplainable events in the history of Earth that mere science can't be enough to explain them. I'm quite amazed you didn't catch that, Thespian. This wasn't very funny.
The funny part was Silverman's reaction to what O'Reilly said about the tides. That's what I was talking about.
Um... Actually we have a few good notions regarding gravity by now. I know I might be called a lunatic trying to explain the tides - but I think we've got that one licked.
We have no idea what gravity actually is. Same with magnetism. Humans can only guess... the point was the analogy.
Pardon me for possibly being rude and definitely being sharp. It's a touchy subject for me.
Pardon me for possibly being rude and definitely being sharp. It's a touchy subject for me.
[moved]
I think Silverman was insulting, simplistic, and perhaps deliberately sensational. I think it made him look like an idiot and damaged his cause. I'm not a fan of O'Reilly, but I agree with him that Silverman's statements were insulting. I don't think O'Reilly made any decent points other than that.
Tides are so well understood that accurate schedules are published on a daily basis - that was not a clever analogy. We understand gravity and magnetism pretty well these days. As for "what they are" in a bigger sense, I guess we don't know what anything is.
For me, there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to be sure whether there is a god or not. I respect that others feel differently, and I have no desire to insult others or foist my beliefs upon them. In my opinion, Silverman's belief that there is no god is no more valid than the belief that there is one (or more). If I had to label myself, I would choose "agnostic". I assume that Silverman has more than a passing understanding of Judaism, which embraces the questioning of religion, so I am surprised that he would go hard-line atheism over agnosticism.
I think Silverman was insulting, simplistic, and perhaps deliberately sensational. I think it made him look like an idiot and damaged his cause. I'm not a fan of O'Reilly, but I agree with him that Silverman's statements were insulting. I don't think O'Reilly made any decent points other than that.
Tides are so well understood that accurate schedules are published on a daily basis - that was not a clever analogy. We understand gravity and magnetism pretty well these days. As for "what they are" in a bigger sense, I guess we don't know what anything is.
For me, there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to be sure whether there is a god or not. I respect that others feel differently, and I have no desire to insult others or foist my beliefs upon them. In my opinion, Silverman's belief that there is no god is no more valid than the belief that there is one (or more). If I had to label myself, I would choose "agnostic". I assume that Silverman has more than a passing understanding of Judaism, which embraces the questioning of religion, so I am surprised that he would go hard-line atheism over agnosticism.
rofl
O'Reilly's a joke and any slip-up of is will always be damned funny simply because of how seriously he still takes himself. It's still funny. And just because they both hold opposite opinions doesn't mean that one of them has to not be an idiot, mind you.
In a lot of cases, I'd say that these kinds of loud atheists are almost (operating word) as bad as the fundies. They really really don't help things when the point is made that science is simply logical point built upon logical point and has absolutely nothing to do with how many gods people think there are. I'd go on about how compatible a person of any belief (atheism is a belief, surprise surprise to atheists - oh how ironic) is with the scientific method as long as said belief doesn't come anywhere fucking near said science... but I limit myself to only using so many sentences that involve both the concepts of "belief" and the word "science" at the same time because of how fucking different they are and how much of a joke religious partisanship is (especially when science is politicized like this). O'Reilly's still a hilarious clown.
Nahin - we're already to the point where we've discovered that we're all just holograms. Oh, and here ya go.
O'Reilly's a joke and any slip-up of is will always be damned funny simply because of how seriously he still takes himself. It's still funny. And just because they both hold opposite opinions doesn't mean that one of them has to not be an idiot, mind you.
In a lot of cases, I'd say that these kinds of loud atheists are almost (operating word) as bad as the fundies. They really really don't help things when the point is made that science is simply logical point built upon logical point and has absolutely nothing to do with how many gods people think there are. I'd go on about how compatible a person of any belief (atheism is a belief, surprise surprise to atheists - oh how ironic) is with the scientific method as long as said belief doesn't come anywhere fucking near said science... but I limit myself to only using so many sentences that involve both the concepts of "belief" and the word "science" at the same time because of how fucking different they are and how much of a joke religious partisanship is (especially when science is politicized like this). O'Reilly's still a hilarious clown.
Nahin - we're already to the point where we've discovered that we're all just holograms. Oh, and here ya go.
We have no idea what gravity actually is. Same with magnetism.
I am deeply infuriated by O'Reilly, so I promised myself to only watch the video until the first time he interrupted whoever it was he was interviewing, which didn't leave me with much to comment on. If you guys are referring to the billboards as being insulting, then I'm sort of surprised. They seemed quite tame, especially compared to a lot of the "Repent now!" billboards I see around.
As for "only guessing" at what gravity and magnetism actually is, well, I can only describe that as an ignorant statement. In repeating the assertion that "we don't know what gravity is" Fox News pundits are either being stupid, or referring to the lack of a graviton particle that mediates gravitational force in the same way photons do for elecromagnetic force. This lack of a particle, however, pretty clearly does not preclude us from knowing a good deal more about gravity than we do about, say, deep sea fish.
As for magnetism, well, you may have already noticed that there's photons around to mediate that force. I suspect your confusion is fuelled by the "fucking magnets" meme, which mocks the Insane Clown Posse for being ignorant pricks. To clarify, here's how magnets work: the north pole is attracted to the south pole, and the south pole is attracted to the north pole. It's really not that complicated.
Of course, there is the possibility that what they really mean is that there is no known origin for the laws of nature. In that context, however, the question becomes as nonsensical as "why is 2+2 = 4, rather than 5?" Fundamental laws of nature are fundamental, and going beyond that yanks you out of the realm of science and into the fun world of philosophy.
Which brings me to my second point: atheists in churches.
The cool thing about churches is that they tend to be nice community places, full of people willing to help out with the moneys in time of need. I would bet you anything that there are a very, very large number of people attending these nice community gathering spots while having doubts about the existence of God.
Now, up until a few years ago, I thought that in order to be an atheist I had to convince myself irrefutably that God didn't exist, and therefore happily labeled myself as an agnostic. I then came to realise, thanks to this article, that all it took to be an atheist is a lack of faith. I don't think anyone will bother arguing that everyone attending church on Sunday is always absolutely convinced in the existence of God.
As for "only guessing" at what gravity and magnetism actually is, well, I can only describe that as an ignorant statement. In repeating the assertion that "we don't know what gravity is" Fox News pundits are either being stupid, or referring to the lack of a graviton particle that mediates gravitational force in the same way photons do for elecromagnetic force. This lack of a particle, however, pretty clearly does not preclude us from knowing a good deal more about gravity than we do about, say, deep sea fish.
As for magnetism, well, you may have already noticed that there's photons around to mediate that force. I suspect your confusion is fuelled by the "fucking magnets" meme, which mocks the Insane Clown Posse for being ignorant pricks. To clarify, here's how magnets work: the north pole is attracted to the south pole, and the south pole is attracted to the north pole. It's really not that complicated.
Of course, there is the possibility that what they really mean is that there is no known origin for the laws of nature. In that context, however, the question becomes as nonsensical as "why is 2+2 = 4, rather than 5?" Fundamental laws of nature are fundamental, and going beyond that yanks you out of the realm of science and into the fun world of philosophy.
Which brings me to my second point: atheists in churches.
The cool thing about churches is that they tend to be nice community places, full of people willing to help out with the moneys in time of need. I would bet you anything that there are a very, very large number of people attending these nice community gathering spots while having doubts about the existence of God.
Now, up until a few years ago, I thought that in order to be an atheist I had to convince myself irrefutably that God didn't exist, and therefore happily labeled myself as an agnostic. I then came to realise, thanks to this article, that all it took to be an atheist is a lack of faith. I don't think anyone will bother arguing that everyone attending church on Sunday is always absolutely convinced in the existence of God.
Ignorance doesn't prove god exists any more than science has proven that god doesn't exist. Really the only thing science has dis-proven are the fantastical claims human beings have made about god.
that was not a clever analogy
Never said he was clever.
To clarify, here's how magnets work: the north pole is attracted to the south pole, and the south pole is attracted to the north pole. It's really not that complicated.
To clarify: why is the north pole attracted to the south pole?
Oh, and here ya go.
Again: how or why?
We know the result of gravity: a force attracting two objects. Why are they attracted? How is it that they are attracted?
Never said he was clever.
To clarify, here's how magnets work: the north pole is attracted to the south pole, and the south pole is attracted to the north pole. It's really not that complicated.
To clarify: why is the north pole attracted to the south pole?
Oh, and here ya go.
Again: how or why?
We know the result of gravity: a force attracting two objects. Why are they attracted? How is it that they are attracted?
Theory. Do you have anything better than that?
Masons hold atoms together. Hydrogen has a neutron. Learn physics.
I'm starting to get angry at this. I won't be posting to this thread anymore.
(EDIT): Why did you delete your moronic post?
Masons hold atoms together. Hydrogen has a neutron. Learn physics.
I'm starting to get angry at this. I won't be posting to this thread anymore.
(EDIT): Why did you delete your moronic post?
There's a very large difference between a theory and a hypothesis, Nahin *facepalm*
Why do I get the sense that you're one of these people who rejects global warming and evolution on the basis that they're "theories?" >_<
Why do I get the sense that you're one of these people who rejects global warming and evolution on the basis that they're "theories?" >_<
There will always be an unanswerable "how or why" for everything if you keep asking. You can play the same game with the existence of god. Not being able to prove a theory (yet) does not invalidate it - disproving it does. We can't prove god exists - nor can we disprove it. Questioning is useful - fighting about it is not.
1. There is a large difference between "a God" existing and "the God" from The Bible/Qur'an/what have you. Such a large amount of the claims made in religious texts have been disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt that one can reasonably make the assertion that "the God" from religious texts does not exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This says nothing about a sentient creator of the universe, however.
The default position for any factual claim should be to withhold belief until verifiable evidence is presented. I have a dragon in my garage, but he's invisible and no scientific instrument can detect him. Do you believe me? Why not?
2. Please watch this video clip. Richard Feynman tells it like it is. We humans do understand a LOT more than people seem to think, however it is hard to explain complicated concepts without the required prior knowledge :)
(also this)
3. The Colbert Report did a segment on O'Reilly's statement. It's pretty funny, and includes astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Watch it here.
(or here in Canada)
Nahin, please adjust your definition of "theory" in a scientific context to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of science.
The default position for any factual claim should be to withhold belief until verifiable evidence is presented. I have a dragon in my garage, but he's invisible and no scientific instrument can detect him. Do you believe me? Why not?
2. Please watch this video clip. Richard Feynman tells it like it is. We humans do understand a LOT more than people seem to think, however it is hard to explain complicated concepts without the required prior knowledge :)
(also this)
3. The Colbert Report did a segment on O'Reilly's statement. It's pretty funny, and includes astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Watch it here.
(or here in Canada)
Nahin, please adjust your definition of "theory" in a scientific context to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of science.
Fuck me. And I thought that guy couldn't get any worse.