Comments on: You Pinheads

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:14:43 +0000

psmith uses “atheist” blog replies derisive to an intentionally controversial and ultraconservative public figure as proof that ALL atheists are primative and amoral and Matt says that while he thinks O’Reilly is a scientific ignoramus …he agrees with that same idiot’s political views. Has the intellectual quality if readers on this blog declined or does O’Reilly just bring out the nut cases everywhere he raises his ugly head?

By: Harold

Harold — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:15:30 +0000

I think Sean and our faithful readers would get a kick out of this (skip to around 4:45):

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/thu-february-3-2011-jane-mcgonigal

By: Baris

Baris — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:38:56 +0000

Science: A ⇐ B ⇐ C ⇐ D ⇐ E ⇐ ….
Religion: (A,B,C,…) ⇐ GOD

If you are religious and understand little bit of science you can as well go with A ⇐ B ⇐ C ⇐ GOD. Bill O’Reilly seems to have difficulties going beyond A.

By: spyder

spyder — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:38:00 +0000

and then there is the Chinese:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/22/china-bans-reincarnation-_n_61444.html?ref=fb&src=sp

By: ChuckWhite

ChuckWhite — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:17:43 +0000

New Rule: If you are negotiating an appearance on O’Reilly’s show, you insist on the following understanding about O’Reilly tactics:

1) When O’Reilly interrupts your response to a question, you are allowed to issue a warning: “Bill, you asked the question, I’ll reply. You just be quiet while I do that.”
2) Should O’Reilly continue to insist on interruption, you quietly state: “Bill, if I’m not allowed to answer your questions, there is no point to my presence here.”
3) At the very next interruption, the guest will quietly remove his/her microphone and walk away.

By: michael

michael — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:42:15 +0000

People who watch this man’s show like Matt and many others like him need to see his logic for how it really is. This man worships a deity that has not only been made up but who’s life story has been taken from many many other traditions predating judaism. What gets me is that you believe ANYTHING that comes out of this man’s mouth about ANYTHING. politics??? are you kidding. and the thought that you would fall into the snag of believing that it’s all republicorps good dems bad. Seriously, it’s much much more complex then that. Officials behind the scenes who were put there when Republicorps were in exec office caused many of the troubles we have today yet people believe this crap thats spewing from this guys mouth, glenn becks mouth, and megyn fox’s mouth just because they sound compelling and are on tv. Cmon people you’re smarter then this.

By: joulesm

joulesm — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:35:54 +0000

Second Clara’s comment…”If there were a just and loving god, she wouldn’t allow such belligerent idiocy to run rampant.”

By: JPS

JPS — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:45:32 +0000

I think the thing I find most aggravating is the rhetorical technique that O’Reilly and other creationists use to argue the teleological argument: ask a question that has an answer that can be given by any number of competent scientists and then, when posing this question to the clueless or the empty room (as in O’Reilly’s case) declare that you’ve won the argument through the inability of your (non)opponent to answer the question. Take any of Bill’s questions and find the academic who can answer it. Discuss the implications, measurements, theories, ideas, and history of that question. It’s a worthwhile endeavor: not one that should be dismissed through misguided flourish as O’Reilly seems content to do.

These rhetorical theists seem happiest when they are isolated and able to make their arguments while being unencumbered by the experts. “Someone needs to stand up to these experts!” If an actual expert does appear, they ask a question that is superficially related but not within the scope of the discussion. “Sean, you explained the evidence and observations for the Big Bang really well, but you can’t explain to me the Cambrian Explosion! How can you still be an atheist?”

It’s that sort of lazy argumentation that is a hallmark of argumentative theists and talk radio bloviators alike. And while their echo-chambers may make them feel self-satisfied, they’re really emperors that aren’t wearing any clothes and only their fans are taken in by the illusion.

Just point out the obvious inconsistencies and self-delusions and move on. There’s nothing more to be seen or said about this. Sooner or later, we’ll all forget this little bit of anti-science. Just in time for the next round.

By: AnotherSean

AnotherSean — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:18:28 +0000

It may be, probably is, the case that the “laws of physics” themselves have no further causal explanation. But this will not stop us from wondering about them, and trying to build mental frameworks for understanding their nature . One thing we know is that the laws are as real as anything we know. Otherwise science is merely description.

By: Mark P

Mark P — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:30:17 +0000

This is a typical argument from ignorance: I don’t know how it happened, so god must have done it.

By: SieveMaria

SieveMaria — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:02:16 +0000

Well, I had this very same argument couched to me by a delightful Amish man (who was trimming some donkeys hoofs)though in a much more elegant way and I was quite taken in by this determination to have or not have faith in the unknown.

He was delighted with himself and I was as well -

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:36:12 +0000

“It is easy enough to find some ridiculous public figure making foolish statements and then to lampoon him with unrestrained glee.”

Well, yes psmith, it is — even on science blogs

By: psmith

psmith — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:57:04 +0000

It is easy enough to find some ridiculous public figure making foolish statements and then to lampoon him with unrestrained glee. But to what end? Is this the modern equivalent of pelting some unfortunate in the stocks with rotten tomatoes? Atheism would seem to be a thin veneer over primitive instincts entirely unredeemed by any moral pretenses.

By: CaliFury

CaliFury — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:07:27 +0000

Bill–it is “Luck” plus “Time” plus “Annihilation of failure” that answers your question. Even the one about the moon. There are, after all, billions of planets with moons. Presumably also with water and… Ah, what’s the use.

Perhaps we should ask what put Bill O’Reilly into orbit. Was it luck or the Creator, Bill? If the creator picked Bill as his spokesman, then it is in the fine tradition of Father Coughlin and other lowbrow individuals–so I’ll just figure it was Bill’s luck and not mine.

By: Rory 'Oh-so-desperate' Kent

Rory 'Oh-so-desperate' Kent — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:33:25 +0000

I never realised how desperate I truly am. Thank you, Bill, for showing me the error of my ways.

By: PSP

PSP — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:07:55 +0000

It saddens me to know that O’Reilly’s show is one of the top-rated of its type – indicative of how many people choose the ugly simplicity of ignorance over the complex beauty of real knowledge. How his arrogant style appeals to so many shows we, here, have a lot of work ahead of us to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

By: Clara

Clara — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:42:44 +0000

If there were a just and loving god, she wouldn’t allow such belligerent idiocy to run rampant.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:26:56 +0000

It’s like Feynman’s explanation of magnetism (google it if you haven’t seen it). You either can accept an answer of “because that’s the universe we live in”, or you can’t. It doesn’t mean we can’t push the question further out, but at some level that is what the answers lead to…

(I’m assuming Rien’s succinct comment is related to this…)

By: Shecky R.

Shecky R. — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:23:59 +0000

Ditto what Rhys said….

And Bill O’ where did your deity come from?… who put him there?… what came before him?… how did he come into being?… huh, huhh, huhhhh?

By: Rien

Rien — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:21:04 +0000

Fuckin’ magnets…