"F*cking tides. How do they work?" - Bill O'Reilly

[brandon]

http://www.reddit.com/tb/ewwrg

O’Reilly: I’ll tell you why [religion's] not a scam. In my opinion, all right? Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can explain why the tide goes in...

Silverman: Tide goes in, tide goes out...?

O’Reilly: Yeah, see, the water — the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always goes in...

Silverman: Maybe it’s Thor up on Mount Olympus who’s making the tides go in and out...

O’Reilly: No no, but you can’t explain that... you can’t explain it...

[Bruno]

Um...I can't believe he could really be THAT stupid, could he?

[teacherone]

they're both idiots--

why didn't silvermann bring up the gravitational pull of the moon?

did either of these morons pass 3rd grade?

[Brett85]

His point was simply that the earth and the universe in general is so orderly that there's no possible way that everything just happens by accident. The world is too complex to not have a designer. But he could've been more clear on what he was actually talking about.

[noxagol]

Silverman is an idiot for simply saying Thor on Mount Olympus. Thor is not some pansy greek god on a mountain, he lives in Yggdrasil and visits Valhalla, the eternal home of the mightiest warriors

[pcosmar]

Um...I can't believe he could really be THAT stupid, could he?

Um,, Yes, He can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

[sratiug]

Blonde will now play us out with - The Tide is High... wait, Blonde is a terrorist organization because God hates them enough to send the tide after them, and what does that mean anyway, play us out???

[ExPatPaki]

they're both idiots--

why didn't silvermann bring up the gravitational pull of the moon?

did either of these morons pass 3rd grade?

Yea, that's what I thought too. He should have brought up the moon's gravitational pull, that Thor comment was stupid.

[mczerone]

His point was simply that the earth and the universe in general is so orderly that there's no possible way that everything just happens by accident. The world is too complex to not have a designer. But he could've been more clear on what he was actually talking about.

Sure he could've been more clear, but he wasn't. He said "you can't explain why the tides go in and out". This is not a question for science, or for anyone who accepts that the natural world does not have volition. Asking "why" is assuming that there is a creator, a prime mover, someone or something that was using the tides as a means to achieve some valued end. Scientists can respond to the question with drawing out the forces that appear to drive the tides, but even if these explanations are accepted, the religionist will retort with "well why does gravity pull?" Or, as you did "why are things 'so orderly'?"

But why aren't you asking: "Why is Mars so barren?" "why is Mercury so hot?" "Why do Pluto and Charon orbit as a pair?" "Why do most rocks and materials on Earth lie there motionless"? These questions point out the disorder in the universe, the anti-life conditions, the mundane chaos. There is a terrible amount of disorder around you, but you never ask "why" to this, you purposefully select the "order" and ask why without looking at the whole picture.

But the whole "why" question is meaningless anyway, unless you are already presupposing a "higher power".

[wizardwatson]

Well, he should have said you can't explain gravity. That actually is an unknown, all we can say is that it is a property of the universe.

[teacherone]

Well, he should have said you can't explain gravity. That actually is an unknown, all we can say is that it is a property of the universe.

http://topcultured.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/einstein.jpg
ever heard of einstein?

[VBRonPaulFan]

his general theory doesn't really explain gravity as far as i can recall....

[teacherone]

his general theory doesn't really explain gravity as far as i can recall....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHGik7WdDYE

[mczerone]

The GT of Relativity re-characterizes gravity as a curvature of space-time. It says that the "force" of gravity is simply the inertia of the universe. For what GTR does, it is amazingly accurate and predictive.

But again, Einstein never sought to answer the question of "why does gravity work?" he sought to answer "how does gravity work?".

BO'R asked "why". There will never be an answer to that question without first finding the "prime mover", and then asking 'Him' directly "why" gravity act as it does. "Why" is a question of praexeology, and hence it is meaningless without a purposeful actor being behind phenomenon in question.

[VBRonPaulFan]

ok, he explained the effects and proposed (waves) what it is... but doesn't definitively state 'what' it is or where it came from. those are the two big unanswered questions that everyone is looking for.

[JohnEngland]

Both of them sound like idiots...

[Fredom101]

His point was simply that the earth and the universe in general is so orderly that there's no possible way that everything just happens by accident. The world is too complex to not have a designer. But he could've been more clear on what he was actually talking about.

But that's a nonsense argument for there being a god. The world may be complex but this has nothing to do with there being a designer or if it was evolution. This just means it's complex.

[pcosmar]

Both of them sound like idiots...

But well paid and influential idiots.
:(

btw. I believe in both God, and creation.
And the effects of gravitational forces.
O'Reilly is still an idiot.

[sratiug]

That's why I came out with a physics minor instead of major. They really couldn't explain gravity. Meet the graviton...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

This article is about the hypothetical particle. For other uses, see Graviton (disambiguation).
Graviton
Composition: Elementary particle
Particle statistics: Bosonic
Group: Gauge boson
Interaction: Gravitation
Status: theoretical
Symbol(s): G[1]
Antiparticle: Self
Theorized: 1930s[2]
The name is attributed to Dmitrii Blokhintsev and F.M. Gal'perin in 1934[3]
Discovered: currently hypothetical
Mass: 0
Mean lifetime: Stable
Electric charge: 0 e
Spin: 2
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2. This is because the source of gravitation is the stress-energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, compared to electromagnetism, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would be indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field must couple to (interact with) the stress-energy tensor in the same way that the gravitational field does. [4] This result suggests that if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.[5]

Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other known forces of nature as being mediated by elementary particles: electromagnetism by the photon, the strong interaction by the gluons, and the weak interaction by the W and Z bosons. The hypothesis is that the gravitational interaction is likewise mediated by a – yet undiscovered – elementary particle, dubbed the graviton. In the classical limit, the theory would reduce to general relativity and conform to Newton's law of gravitation in the weak-field limit.[6][7][8]

However, attempts to extend the Standard Model with gravitons have run into serious theoretical difficulties at high energies (processes with energies close to or above the Planck scale) because of infinities arising due to quantum effects (in technical terms, gravitation is nonrenormalizable). Since classical general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible at such energies, from a theoretical point of view the present situation is not tenable.[9] Some proposed models of quantum gravity[10] attempt to address these issues, but these are speculative theories

[roho76]

His point was simply that the earth and the universe in general is so orderly that there's no possible way that everything just happens by accident. The world is too complex to not have a designer. But he could've been more clear on what he was actually talking about.

Who designed the designer? The designer of designers? Because he couldn't have just happened, he had to be designed. And please somebody tell me the purpose of the designer if not for the people who believe in intelligent design. What did he do before he created man? Just sit around all day waiting to create someone to believe in him so he would have something to do? I asked these same questions of my preacher as a child and he couldn't answer. He just told me to have faith. No thanks. And I'm pretty sure the designer wouldn't have created Bill O'Reilly either or half of the other assholes that inhabit this planet and if he did, shame on him.

[dannno]

Who designed the designer? The designer of designers?

See: Mormon theology for that answer.

Christians don't explain a lot of shit that the Mormon religion does.

[RonPaulMania]

Who designed the designer? The designer of designers? Because he couldn't have just happened, he had to be designed. And please somebody tell me the purpose of the designer if not for the people who believe in intelligent design. What did he do before he created man? Just sit around all day waiting to create someone to believe in him so he would have something to do? I asked these same questions of my preacher as a child and he couldn't answer. He just told me to have faith. No thanks. And I'm pretty sure the designer wouldn't have created Bill O'Reilly either or half of the other assholes that inhabit this planet and if he did, shame on him.

Of course it's contrary for the 1st to be 2nd; so if there is a 1st Designer it would be necessary that he could not be anything but 1st, or there would be a contradiction. If there is never a 1st in the line of cause then everything is an intermediary, which would mean infinite regression, which we know is not true.

Yes, God can be proven. I have read disproving logic against the existence of God, they are all horribly thought out and appear to be moral reasons behind such bad logic.

[oyarde]

Silverman is an idiot for simply saying Thor on Mount Olympus. Thor is not some pansy greek god on a mountain, he lives in Yggdrasil and visits Valhalla, the eternal home of the mightiest warriors

ha , ha , excellent

[oyarde]

His point was simply that the earth and the universe in general is so orderly that there's no possible way that everything just happens by accident. The world is too complex to not have a designer. But he could've been more clear on what he was actually talking about.

I think so

[pacelli]

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/north-pole-moon2.jpg

"Fuckin' thing sucks."

[oyarde]

they're both idiots--

why didn't silvermann bring up the gravitational pull of the moon?

did either of these morons pass 3rd grade?

I think everyone knows about the moon ?

[dannno]

Of course it's contrary for the 1st to be 2nd; so if there is a 1st Designer it would be necessary that he could not be anything but 1st, or there would be a contradiction.

What a bunch of bologna. How is that logical? Why does their need to be one source for our design?

Mormon theology reveals more about our creation and our destiny than Christianity. As far as we are concerned, God is the creator, but that doesn't mean God wasn't once a child of another God, and that our spirits cannot grow up to be Gods as well. Why wouldn't they? How can you prove an inherent difference between God's spirit and our spirit, other than their ages?




Yes, God can be proven.

No way.

[specialK]

Um,, Yes, He can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

that's hilarious

[libertarian4321]

http://www.reddit.com/tb/ewwrg

O’Reilly: I’ll tell you why [religion's] not a scam. In my opinion, all right? Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can explain why the tide goes in...

Silverman: Tide goes in, tide goes out...?

O’Reilly: Yeah, see, the water — the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always goes in...

Silverman: Maybe it’s Thor up on Mount Olympus who’s making the tides go in and out...

O’Reilly: No no, but you can’t explain that... you can’t explain it...

This sort of idiotic "argument" is frequently made by the religious.

Their "reasoning" goes that if we can't explain something, God must be responsible for it.

We couldn't explain electricity 300 years ago, that didn't mean "God created it". There are a lot of things we understand today that we didn't understand in the past.

The fact that we don't currently understand everything does not mean that:

1. We will never understand it
or
2. That we must MAKE UP an "explanation" or fairly tale to explain everything we don't understand (e.g. a "God" myth).

[Bruno]

I'm not even sure how the sun rises each day without the Aztec sacrifices that used to ensure it.

[Brett85]

It's a shame that there's such a disdain for Christianity and religion in general here. Having the liberty movement seen as anti Christian certainly won't help Ron Paul in any way. Ron is a Christian who believes in creation, but many people won't realize that if they look at what his supporters believe. It seems like most of the people who post here don't even come close to sharing Ron's views on issues like creation, abortion, public displays of religion, etc. Ron is a culturally conservative libertarian, not a Christian hating atheist. This entire thread is offensive.

[pcosmar]

This entire thread is offensive.
Bill O'Reilly is Fuckin' offensive.

Most of the thread is derail from that point.
;)

[RileyE104]

There shouldn't even be a discussion of this... people can believe what they want.

Atheists need to learn that and respect that, as well as the insistent Bible thumpers.

As Thomas Jefferson once said (something along these lines..), "If my neighbor believes in multiple gods or no gods, it does not pick my pocket or break my leg and therefore it's no harm to me."

[oyarde]

I'm not even sure how the sun rises each day without the Aztec sacrifices that used to ensure it.

There was never a need for human sacrafice .

[dannno]

It's a shame that there's such a disdain for Christianity and religion in general here. Having the liberty movement seen as anti Christian certainly won't help Ron Paul in any way.

Actually it will help a lot.. not being anti-Christian, but having the message coming from a non-Christian liberty viewpoint. I'm pretty sure less than 10% of my peer group in college was religious, and even some of the more hardcore religious people I knew have since denounced their religion. It was maybe a few points higher in high school.

I really have a hard time believing the statistics in this country, other than the fact that some more 'progressive' people I know might even say they are Christian even though they don't practice and don't hold to their beliefs in the same way as people who are very serious about their religion. It's more of a way of life, to be a good person to other people, but they are often not religious at all, they don't have any qualms with consensual sexual relations outside of marriage or other things which many Christians look down on.. but they still might say they are Christian in a survey rather than atheist.. other kids do it because of how ingrained their religion is into their family life, but for nothing else.




It seems like most of the people who post here don't even come close to sharing Ron's views on issues like creation, abortion, public displays of religion, etc. Ron is a culturally conservative libertarian, not a Christian hating atheist. This entire thread is offensive.

Creationism is irrelevant to his political views, public display of religion is a first amendment issue.

[oyarde]

There shouldn't even be a discussion of this... people can believe what they want.

Atheists need to learn that and respect that, as well as the insistent Bible thumpers.

As Thomas Jefferson once said (something along these lines..), "If my neighbor believes in multiple gods or no gods, it does not pick my pocket or break my leg and therefore it's no harm to me."

Nice quote

[Brett85]

Bill O'Reilly is Fuckin' offensive.

Most of the thread is derail from that point.
;)

Maybe so, but this thread seems to criticize O'Reilly for simply suggesting that God has a hand in the way the world and the universe works. About 90% of the American people believe in God, so it shouldn't be that surprising that a cable talk show host suggested that God has some control over how the world and universe operates.

[Brett85]

Creationism is irrelevant to his political views, public display of religion is a first amendment issue.

Well according to the ACLU the 1st amendment actually prohibits public displays of religion.

[oyarde]

Well according to the ACLU the 1st amendment actually prohibits public displays of religion.

Yeah , what is the explanation for that ?

[Krugerrand]

This sort of idiotic "argument" is frequently made by the religious.

Their "reasoning" goes that if we can't explain something, God must be responsible for it.

We couldn't explain electricity 300 years ago, that didn't mean "God created it". There are a lot of things we understand today that we didn't understand in the past.

The fact that we don't currently understand everything does not mean that:

1. We will never understand it
or
2. That we must MAKE UP an "explanation" or fairly tale to explain everything we don't understand (e.g. a "God" myth).

My experience with people of faith has been that "God" is not used a hole-filler for them. Instead their beliefs are based on claimed experiences/interactions with the said super-natural being. For them, the basis of their belief in said super-natural being is that relationship.

Now, you can challenge them to prove that relationship - but that's an impossible challenge. What comes to mind is a Star Trek episode (sorry) where Picard communicates with what's-his-face (first-officer) to capture the intruders on the flight deck - but he doesn't use any words or motions. He manages to do it with his eyes and face - and it thus goes undetected by the intruders.

That said - why do we care what O'Reilly says? He's a moron.

[dannno]

Well according to the ACLU the 1st amendment actually prohibits public displays of religion.

I have no problem with public displays of religion as long as other religions are allowed to display publicly and it isn't being publicly financed. Neither should the ACLU, imo, not sure if that is their specific stance, maybe not..

[Krugerrand]

Actually it will help a lot.. not being anti-Christian, but having the message coming from a non-Christian liberty viewpoint. I'm pretty sure less than 10% of my peer group in college was religious, and even some of the more hardcore religious people I knew have since denounced their religion. It was maybe a few points higher in high school.

I really have a hard time believing the statistics in this country, other than the fact that some more 'progressive' people I know might even say they are Christian even though they don't practice and don't hold to their beliefs in the same way as people who are very serious about their religion. It's more of a way of life, to be a good person to other people, but they are often not religious at all, they don't have any qualms with consensual sexual relations outside of marriage or other things which many Christians look down on.. but they still might say they are Christian in a survey rather than atheist.. other kids do it because of how ingrained their religion is into their family life, but for nothing else.




Creationism is irrelevant to his political views, public display of religion is a first amendment issue.

I'm not worried about atheists, christians, hindus or muslims supporting Ron Paul. He knows how to communicate that Liberty appeals to everybody and unite them around that message.We just need to keep working on getting people to pay attention to what he's saying.

[Brett85]

I have no problem with public displays of religion as long as other religions are allowed to display publicly and it isn't being publicly financed. Neither should the ACLU, imo, not sure if that is their specific stance, maybe not..

I don't believe that the ACLU supports any public displays of religion, as they believe it violates the separation of church and state. But I agree that all religions should be allowed to display publicly.

[mczerone]

It's a shame that there's such a disdain for Christianity and religion in general here. Having the liberty movement seen as anti Christian certainly won't help Ron Paul in any way. Ron is a Christian who believes in creation, but many people won't realize that if they look at what his supporters believe. It seems like most of the people who post here don't even come close to sharing Ron's views on issues like creation, abortion, public displays of religion, etc. Ron is a culturally conservative libertarian, not a Christian hating atheist. This entire thread is offensive.

My religious views are nuanced, but tolerant. I was trying to point out the difference between the science of asking "how" and the faith of asking "how" in my previous post. I don't hate Christianity as a concept, and I try to not disparage Creationism beyond holding it to rationally consider the objective physical evidence of the observable world (i.e. its fine if you insist that there was a creator that set into motion the entire world, but you cannot claim that the Earth was created from whole cloth one day prior to the existence of modern man with a fossil record already in place and radioactive dating of mineral deposits magically adjusted so that they would show great age. To deny the physical world any evidential weight is identical to saying that we were all created this morning with false memories implanted in our brains making us think we were the appropriate age.).

I have a very particular faith, as do you. Lets agree to allow each other this faith, and use this toleration as our mark in supporting RP and other constitutional and/or libertarian objectives. Further, from what I gather, RP would firmly stand by a private school teaching that creationism is bunk, just as much as a religious school teaching that there must be a creator.

And what is your opinion on where RP stands on government institutions displaying religious symbols? Certainly the U.S. Constitution bans the making of laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So wouldn't a resolution to display a nativity be in respect to establishing a certain version of Christianity, and in this day of general taxation, wouldn't spending from the general purse be prohibitive on the citizens to the free exercise of their religion? If the government is to be anything at all, it is to be the NEUTRAL arbiter among citizens and states, is it not? The State property should no more display a Star of David than they should tell a pizza parlor that they can't serve solely kosher ingredients.

The only things offensive in this thread are the talking heads quoted in the OP. Again, I have no disdain for Christianity or religion in general, but it seems that you are projecting your own anti-non-Christian views onto those who are not Christian. Having the liberty movement seen as anti-tolerant of religion will not help Ron Paul in any way.

[Brett85]

Yeah , what is the explanation for that ?

Apparently they think that the establishment clause means that you can't even have public displays of religion, even though it simply means that Congress can't pass a specific law forcing people to attend a specific church.

[mczerone]

Well according to the ACLU the 1st amendment actually prohibits public displays of religion.

Do you mean "displays of one's religion so that any member of the public can see" or do you mean "Publicly financed bodies selecting to display religious symbols"?

There is a world of difference, but your language could mean either.

[Krugerrand]

I have no problem with public displays of religion as long as other religions are allowed to display publicly and it isn't being publicly financed. Neither should the ACLU, imo, not sure if that is their specific stance, maybe not..

I generally agree. Over on the IRS thread Captian Shays posted this link by Chuck Baldwin:

I don't believe in coincidences. This just off the press from Chuck Baldwin
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=2711

There is a reason for everything. For those of us involved in this thread I really think we are being awakened.

If I can grab a quote from that link:

So, where are the virtues of honesty and courage in the desire for truth today? Threaten the average pastor and church leader with some obscure IRS tax code and they will quickly turn their backs upon virtually every principle of truth and honor that they once professed to believe. The mere threat of potential financial loss sends men (excuse me, males) scurrying for cover.

In this regard, when then-Senator Lyndon Johnson created the heinous 501(c)3 IRS tax-exempt status for churches, he very cleverly (with assistance from Hades, I might add) planted the seeds that would grow up to intimidate the vast majority of America’s pastors and church leaders into becoming silent slaves of the state.

As Chuck points out, people of faith should be far more concerned about how big government interferes with the practice of their faith rather than trying to get government to actively project their beliefs.

[Chieppa1]

It's a shame that there's such a disdain for Christianity and religion in general here. Having the liberty movement seen as anti Christian certainly won't help Ron Paul in any way. Ron is a Christian who believes in creation, but many people won't realize that if they look at what his supporters believe. It seems like most of the people who post here don't even come close to sharing Ron's views on issues like creation, abortion, public displays of religion, etc. Ron is a culturally conservative libertarian, not a Christian hating atheist. This entire thread is offensive.

So is Christian discrimination of gays.

And honestly. Dr. Paul never asked/seems to care what his supporters beliefs are. So I don't really care what his religious beliefs are either.

Being a fucking athiest doesn't make me offensive to Christians. I'm pretty sure if Christ was alive/real/whatever. He was smite the living shit out of the 90% of us.

Half the reason I'm not religious anymore is the "woo is me" BS I had to deal with. Believe whatever you want. The minute you push it on someone your an asshole.

[Acala]

I'm not even sure how the sun rises each day without the Aztec sacrifices that used to ensure it.

What makes you think they stopped?

What makes you think the cult just didn't go underground like, for example, the Aztec's psilocybe mushroom cult?

What makes you think that there isn't a secret society of descendants of Aztec shamen who have heroically maintained the human sacrifice ritual without which we would not have survived?

[mczerone]

Apparently they think that the establishment clause means that you can't even have public displays of religion, even though it simply means that Congress can't pass a specific law forcing people to attend a specific church.

The U.S. Constitution bans the making of laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is now extended also to state governments through the 14th Amendment. The statement in the U.S. Constitution is "respecting an establishment of religion", meaning that there can be no endorsement of any religion already established. It does not say, nor does it mean, that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. That formulation is definitely included in how the Constitution was written, but the words written on the page are more broad than how you would like to interpret them.

[Krugerrand]

~And what is your opinion on where RP stands on government institutions displaying religious symbols? Certainly the U.S. Constitution bans the making of laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So wouldn't a resolution to display a nativity be in respect to establishing a certain version of Christianity, and in this day of general taxation, wouldn't spending from the general purse be prohibitive on the citizens to the free exercise of their religion? If the government is to be anything at all, it is to be the NEUTRAL arbiter among citizens and states, is it not? The State property should no more display a Star of David than they should tell a pizza parlor that they can't serve solely kosher ingredients.~

This is where that ugly incorporation issue comes up. North Carolina was a state for a long time before Catholics and Jews were allowed to vote. The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law ... it didn't spell out that States could make no law.

Basically, things should be handled as locally as possible. And, I stated above, I'd be more concerned about what the government does than what it does not do.

[brandon]

Can we focus more on bashing Bill O and less on a religious flame war? thanks.

[misterx]

His point was simply that the earth and the universe in general is so orderly that there's no possible way that everything just happens by accident. The world is too complex to not have a designer. But he could've been more clear on what he was actually talking about.

The universe hasn't always been that way, but out of chaos comes order. Chaos will always bounce around until it finds order then it will cease being chaotic. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. For example, the moon was just bouncing around space chaotically until it happened to come in contact with a mass that was large enough to trap it in it's orbit. Then it ceased to be chaotic and became orderly. There's nothing magical about it and no design to it.

[Maximus]

Geez if you are going to make an argument from design the tides aren't a great way to do it.

[erowe1]

The universe hasn't always been that way, but out of chaos comes order. Chaos will always bounce around until it finds order then it will cease being chaotic.

Uh, no (http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm).

[oyarde]

they're both idiots--

why didn't silvermann bring up the gravitational pull of the moon?

did either of these morons pass 3rd grade?

Funny thing is , if I recall , Bill was a teacher

[oyarde]

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/north-pole-moon2.jpg

"Fuckin' thing sucks."

If that picture is real , it is beautiful .

[Bruno]

What makes you think they stopped?

What makes you think the cult just didn't go underground like, for example, the Aztec's psilocybe mushroom cult?

What makes you think that there isn't a secret society of descendants of Aztec shamen who have heroically maintained the human sacrifice ritual without which we would not have survived?

If so, i hope they keep it up! I like sunshine and all it produces. ;)

[NYgs23]

Why do men think? Why do men remain men? Why do they not turn into turnips every evening at about seven o'clock? Why is heat hot? Why do quantum particles dance? Why does existence exist?

[Andrew-Austin]

God of the gaps strikes again! Poesidan is in your oceans, controllin your tides!

[HazyHusky420]

Wrap your heads around this.

God created evolution.

How hard is that for people to grasp?

[erowe1]

Why do men think? Why do men remain men? Why do they not turn into turnips every evening at about seven o'clock? Why is heat hot? Why do quantum particles dance? Why does existence exist?

I am not being tongue-in-cheek when I say that all those questions point to God's existence.

[Kregisen]

Who designed the designer? The designer of designers? Because he couldn't have just happened, he had to be designed. And please somebody tell me the purpose of the designer if not for the people who believe in intelligent design. What did he do before he created man? Just sit around all day waiting to create someone to believe in him so he would have something to do? I asked these same questions of my preacher as a child and he couldn't answer. He just told me to have faith. No thanks. And I'm pretty sure the designer wouldn't have created Bill O'Reilly either or half of the other assholes that inhabit this planet and if he did, shame on him.

I'm NOT going to enter this whole atheist/creationist argument....I don't understand why it's even on a news show. However, to answer your question, if there was a creator who created time, the creator wouldn't be bound by time, therefore nothing came before it.....it just "exists". That's why when someone asks what created everything, you CAN'T say "then what created the creator?".....because again, if there was a creator, it's not bound by time and therefore doesn't have to be created.

[oyarde]

I'm NOT going to enter this whole atheist/creationist argument....I don't understand why it's even on a news show. However, to answer your question, if there was a creator who created time, the creator wouldn't be bound by time, therefore nothing came before it.....it just "exists". That's why when someone asks what created everything, you CAN'T say "then what created the creator?".....because again, if there was a creator, it's not bound by time and therefore doesn't have to be created.

I think so .

[Brett85]

I'm NOT going to enter this whole atheist/creationist argument....I don't understand why it's even on a news show. However, to answer your question, if there was a creator who created time, the creator wouldn't be bound by time, therefore nothing came before it.....it just "exists". That's why when someone asks what created everything, you CAN'T say "then what created the creator?".....because again, if there was a creator, it's not bound by time and therefore doesn't have to be created.

Good answer.

[Brett85]

My religious views are nuanced, but tolerant. I was trying to point out the difference between the science of asking "how" and the faith of asking "how" in my previous post. I don't hate Christianity as a concept, and I try to not disparage Creationism beyond holding it to rationally consider the objective physical evidence of the observable world (i.e. its fine if you insist that there was a creator that set into motion the entire world, but you cannot claim that the Earth was created from whole cloth one day prior to the existence of modern man with a fossil record already in place and radioactive dating of mineral deposits magically adjusted so that they would show great age. To deny the physical world any evidential weight is identical to saying that we were all created this morning with false memories implanted in our brains making us think we were the appropriate age.).

I have a very particular faith, as do you. Lets agree to allow each other this faith, and use this toleration as our mark in supporting RP and other constitutional and/or libertarian objectives. Further, from what I gather, RP would firmly stand by a private school teaching that creationism is bunk, just as much as a religious school teaching that there must be a creator.

And what is your opinion on where RP stands on government institutions displaying religious symbols? Certainly the U.S. Constitution bans the making of laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So wouldn't a resolution to display a nativity be in respect to establishing a certain version of Christianity, and in this day of general taxation, wouldn't spending from the general purse be prohibitive on the citizens to the free exercise of their religion? If the government is to be anything at all, it is to be the NEUTRAL arbiter among citizens and states, is it not? The State property should no more display a Star of David than they should tell a pizza parlor that they can't serve solely kosher ingredients.

The only things offensive in this thread are the talking heads quoted in the OP. Again, I have no disdain for Christianity or religion in general, but it seems that you are projecting your own anti-non-Christian views onto those who are not Christian. Having the liberty movement seen as anti-tolerant of religion will not help Ron Paul in any way.

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Rated 17% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

Ron Paul has the same interpretation of the establishment clause that I do. The establishment clause of the Constitution was created to bar the government from creating a state run church that everybody would be forced to attend. The establishment clause came about because our founding fathers did have a government sponsored church that everybody was forced to attend in Britain. They wanted to have the freedom to actually worship as they pleased in the United States. They did not want the government to stop anybody from going to their church of choice, and they also didn't want the government to force anybody to go to church or believe in a certain religion. But they never intended for the establishment clause to actually prevent the government from promoting a general belief in a higher power. The establishment clause does not mean that "In God we trust" can't be printed on coins. It doesn't mean that the Christmas holiday should be banned. It doesn't mean that "under God" can't be used in the pledge of allegiance. Etc. Our founding fathers wanted our country to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

[charrob]

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Our founding fathers wanted our country to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

The problem comes when elected officials use their religious beliefs to create law. This is who we now have for 2 years as the “New Chair of the subcommittee on Environment and Economy” in the U.S. House of Representatives:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5WHkT45Vs&feature=related]


-From the March 25, 2009: Spouting bible verses as evidence that climate change is false, Rep. John Shimkus concludes by the end of his opening statement that: "The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth."

Whether the warming is due to man or is a natural phenomenon does not seem to be the topic; rather the discussion basically shuts off research to verify any validity/non-validity of what most scientists believe to be true: the earth is warming. This didn’t occur in some church- it occurred in a subcommittee meeting on Capitol Hill. Somehow I find it hard to believe the founders would have agreed to this- many of them were scientists- there is so many interpretations of the Bible itself, to quote the Bible in proof of something in the scientific realm seems counter to what the Founders would have envisioned.

[AxisMundi]

Um...I can't believe he could really be THAT stupid, could he?

Bill O'rly is an embarrassment to every American of Irish decent who has two brain cells to rub together.

[AxisMundi]

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Rated 17% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

Ron Paul has the same interpretation of the establishment clause that I do. The establishment clause of the Constitution was created to bar the government from creating a state run church that everybody would be forced to attend. The establishment clause came about because our founding fathers did have a government sponsored church that everybody was forced to attend in Britain. They wanted to have the freedom to actually worship as they pleased in the United States. They did not want the government to stop anybody from going to their church of choice, and they also didn't want the government to force anybody to go to church or believe in a certain religion. But they never intended for the establishment clause to actually prevent the government from promoting a general belief in a higher power. The establishment clause does not mean that "In God we trust" can't be printed on coins. It doesn't mean that the Christmas holiday should be banned. It doesn't mean that "under God" can't be used in the pledge of allegiance. Etc. Our founding fathers wanted our country to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

One cannot have a freedom OF religion without a freedom FROM religion. Otherwise Protestants could outlaw Catholicism, for example.

Also, from Bouveir's Law Dictionary, the earliest definitional source for American legal terms...

ESTABLISH... 4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Like many, Dr. Paul's (as you claim it anyways) views of the Establishment Clause are incomplete and tell only part of the story.

[Brett85]

The problem comes when elected officials use their religious beliefs to create law. This is who we now have for 2 years as the “New Chair of the subcommittee on Environment and Economy” in the U.S. House of Representatives:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5WHkT45Vs&feature=related]


-From the March 25, 2009: Spouting bible verses as evidence that climate change is false, Rep. John Shimkus concludes by the end of his opening statement that: "The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth."

Whether the warming is due to man or is a natural phenomenon does not seem to be the topic; rather the discussion basically shuts off research to verify any validity/non-validity of what most scientists believe to be true: the earth is warming. This didn’t occur in some church- it occurred in a subcommittee meeting on Capitol Hill. Somehow I find it hard to believe the founders would have agreed to this- many of them were scientists- there is so many interpretations of the Bible itself, to quote the Bible in proof of something in the scientific realm seems counter to what the Founders would have envisioned.

Yeah. I agree that goes way too far. Global warming can be debunked without using the Bible.

[Legend1104]

I'm NOT going to enter this whole atheist/creationist argument....I don't understand why it's even on a news show. However, to answer your question, if there was a creator who created time, the creator wouldn't be bound by time, therefore nothing came before it.....it just "exists". That's why when someone asks what created everything, you CAN'T say "then what created the creator?".....because again, if there was a creator, it's not bound by time and therefore doesn't have to be created.
That is what I have always felt. When people say God was just sitting around waiting to create stuff, I think that is crazy. He lives in a place without time so there is no past, present, or future. Everything just exists.

[Brett85]

One cannot have a freedom OF religion without a freedom FROM religion. Otherwise Protestants could outlaw Catholicism, for example.

Also, from Bouveir's Law Dictionary, the earliest definitional source for American legal terms...

ESTABLISH... 4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Like many, Dr. Paul's (as you claim it anyways) views of the Establishment Clause are incomplete and tell only part of the story.

"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

[oyarde]

"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Bingo !

[AxisMundi]

That is what I have always felt. When people say God was just sitting around waiting to create stuff, I think that is crazy. He lives in a place without time so there is no past, present, or future. Everything just exists.

Is this provable utilizing the Scientific Method and Principle?

Is this submittable as evidence in a court of law?

I'm not trying to single you out, merely using your views as an example, so please don't take this as a personal attack.

What you state is a belief. It is protected by our Constitution. That same document ensures that religious doctrine is (supposed to) be kept separate from our government and laws, so that people may indeed believe in whatever deity they prefer, or none.

A freedom OF religion preserved and protected within a framework of a freedom FROM religion.

[Brett85]

A freedom OF religion preserved and protected within a framework of a freedom FROM religion.

I'm certainly glad that Ron Paul doesn't agree with you on this.

[Bruno]

"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

I've always been amazed that not everyone, including our courts, recognizes that.

[NYgs23]

Why do men think? Why do men remain men? Why do they not turn into turnips every evening at about seven o'clock? Why is heat hot? Why do quantum particles dance? Why does existence exist?

I am not being tongue-in-cheek when I say that all those questions point to God's existence.

Neither am I.

[NYgs23]

That is what I have always felt. When people say God was just sitting around waiting to create stuff, I think that is crazy. He lives in a place without time so there is no past, present, or future. Everything just exists.

The more interesting question is how we know it's an intelligent mind.

[Andrew-Austin]

I am not being tongue-in-cheek when I say that all those questions point to God's existence.

If by "God" you mean a completely natural force(s) of the universe, and not the ridiculous sky-man / subconscious reflection that evolved from primitive man's complete ignorance represented today in the world's major religions, then sure. If not, then epic face palm.

This is not a formula for discovering truth: ignorance + wanting to believe in God = therefor "God" (randomly insert various completely unsported dogmas here) is responsible for the things we don't yet understand.

[HazyHusky420]

Atheism and religion. Two sides of the same coin. You don't see deists argue like this.

[NYgs23]

If by "God" you mean a completely natural force(s) of the universe, and not the ridiculous sky-man / subconscious reflection that evolved from primitive man's complete ignorance represented today in the world's major religions, then sure. If not, then epic face palm.

This is not a formula for discovering truth: ignorance + wanting to believe in God = therefor "God" (randomly insert various completely unsported dogmas here) is responsible for the things we don't yet understand.

So...why does existence exist?

[Bman]

Been posted a bunch but it's always fun to pick on Bill.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbJC2q-OovI

[AxisMundi]

I'm certainly glad that Ron Paul doesn't agree with you on this.

Many don't, usually those who don't bother to research the matter.

I would be very confident that should Dr. Paul happen to read the Bouvier definitions (I also understand that Black's is very close as well, or so I've been told) he would see the truth of the matter.

That Thomas Jefferson's phrase "Wall of Separation between Church and State" is indeed quite accurate, and that the Establishment Cause was intended to preserve religious freedom by keeping religious doctrine out of US Laws.

[AxisMundi]

So...why does existence exist?

Because it has always existed and the Big bang is merely the "winter" of the Universe, not the start.

[NYgs23]

Because it has always existed

But why? Why does existence exist when it seems that it would be much easier for it not to exist.

[Feeding the Abscess]

But why? Why does existence exist when it seems that it would be much easier for it not to exist.

1. Doesn't have to have a reason to exist. Vast majority of botanists and biologists have come to the conclusion that life exists for the sole purpose of existing.

2. We don't yet know. Might not know for a while. Glad you're the equivalent of early man who cooked up a deity to explain the elements and natural phenomena, though.

[RonPaulMania]

But why? Why does existence exist when it seems that it would be much easier for it not to exist.

Philosophically you are asking about the state of contingent beings. Since everything exists in this world based on contingent to something else, can that happen without infinite regression? Of course not.

St. Thomas writes:

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

[Xenophage]

The GT of Relativity re-characterizes gravity as a curvature of space-time. It says that the "force" of gravity is simply the inertia of the universe. For what GTR does, it is amazingly accurate and predictive.

But again, Einstein never sought to answer the question of "why does gravity work?" he sought to answer "how does gravity work?".

BO'R asked "why". There will never be an answer to that question without first finding the "prime mover", and then asking 'Him' directly "why" gravity act as it does. "Why" is a question of praexeology, and hence it is meaningless without a purposeful actor being behind phenomenon in question.

You're right, the question 'why' implies a goal. Only a volatile consciousness can create purpose and meaning. Human beings have goals, but rocks and even giant balls of cosmic gas do not have goals. To ask for what purpose gravity exists is improper without presupposing the existence of a consciousness that created it. The question is therefore loaded.

You can't ask why the Universe exists, or why any particular property of the Universe is what it is, unless you already assume that something *outside* of the Universe created it, which is by definition a logical conundrum. The definition of the Universe is "all that exists," but in order for something or someone to have created the Universe, that entity would have to exist *before* the Universe, or independently of it. The entity could not, therefore, be said to be a part of "all that exists." Hence, it is impossible for the Universe to have a creator.

Nor is it necessary that the Universe has a Creator. We can perceive that the Universe exists, and through a process of logic we can understand that the Universe would be impossible if its properties were any different, because logical contradictions are impossible in reality. That the Universe *does* exist is reason enough for its properties to be as they are.

"Existence exists" is an axiom. As per the definition of the Universe, "The Universe exists" is the same axiom. It cannot be refuted without accepting it as a premise. Nothing created existence, and nothing created the Universe. It exists, we are here, and that's all that anyone can say about it.

Therefore, the question "why" gravity exists is illogical. It is not a question that can or should be asked, and it isn't a question that will ever be answered. All that can be asked is 'how does it work'? That IS a proper question, and still one that has yet to be fully explained. Even General Relativity falls short, despite offering tremendous insight, because it doesn't relate the quantum world to the cosmic one.

[pcosmar]

Wow,

http://www.kaitaia.com/funny/pictures/ThreadHijack/thread_direction.gif

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/25/129036633142460221.jpg

All the philosophical discussion and and gratuitous religion bashing does not change the fact that Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.

[Krugerrand]

Wow,

All the philosophical discussion and and gratuitous religion bashing does not change the fact that Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.

I can't see any reason why people watch or listen to him.

[brandon]

http://crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/05/mediumoreillymad202ou4.jpg

[Brett85]

I can't see any reason why people watch or listen to him.

I don't like watching commercials, so I switch it over there during the commercials of the Judge's show.

[Bruno]

Actually, I don't know that this thread was derailed at all. But it probably should have originally be in the Religion Forum to begin with, because that was the topic O'Reilly was discussing.

That, and O'Reilly is an annoying, arrogant, pompous, hypocrytical ass. :)

[Krugerrand]

I don't like watching commercials, so I switch it over there during the commercials of the Judge's show.

QVC or a test pattern (do those still exist?) would be more entertaining.

EDIT - I guess QVC would be the same as a commercial.

[georgiaboy]

Some very good points in this thread. After having lived most of my life as an atheist/agnostic, but now fully embracing Christianity, I like to read the debates.

Iron sharpens iron, as they say.

I agree with TC and Ron Paul's interpretation of the 1st amendment concerning establishing a nationwide religion.

I really like the statement that the creator who necessarily created time and the laws of the universe must therefore be outside of it and them.

Science works to answer the 'how' -- it's really the easy part, isn't it? But the 'why' is really what makes us all stare at the ceiling in our beds at night, and in the end is the more important question for us in our deepest parts.

[BrendenR]

Some very good points in this thread. After having lived most of my life as an atheist/agnostic, but now fully embracing Christianity

Why did you live most of your life as an atheist?

[georgiaboy]

Why did you live most of your life as an atheist?

I wasn't really raised in a religious home, and once I left home the American cultural milieu in college and beyond championed secularism, frowned upon or mocked religiosity, and I bought into the simplistic bar-room, dormitory arguments without too much critical thought or care - typical apathetic American who thought that religion had nothing to offer the enlightened. Heck, even today, if one is living with no direct religious activity, the major stories one sees or hears about concerning religion paint the religious as basically low-IQ kooks and their tenets as fairytales. Only after I entered adulthood and had some first-hand experiences that glitched this matrix did I begin to question the assumptions the culture had given me and investigate the subject more thoroughly.

[oyarde]

I wasn't really raised in a religious home, and once I left home the American cultural milieu in college and beyond championed secularism, frowned upon or mocked religiosity, and I bought into the simplistic bar-room, dormitory arguments without too much critical thought or care - typical apathetic American who thought that religion had nothing to offer the enlightened. Heck, even today, if one is living with no direct religious activity, the major stories one sees or hears about concerning religion paint the religious as basically low-IQ kooks and their tenets as fairytales. Only after I entered adulthood and had some first-hand experiences that glitched this matrix did I begin to question the assumptions the culture had given me and investigate the subject more thoroughly.
Interesting , I am curious of the glitches you mentioned , but that would be too much info . It is good that you have found a peace / happiness .

[AxisMundi]

But why? Why does existence exist when it seems that it would be much easier for it not to exist.

Why does there have to be a "why"?

"Why is a question to be answered, not an answer to a question.

[NYgs23]

Doesn't have to have a reason to exist.

Then why doesn't nothing exist?

2. We don't yet know. Might not know for a while. Glad you're the equivalent of early man who cooked up a deity to explain the elements and natural phenomena, though.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that the question of why something exists and why nothing doesn't exist can't be answered through empirical study, since empirical can only discover why things come from things. It can't answer why there are things and not no things.

[NYgs23]

Why does there have to be a "why"?

Because if there wasn't a "why," nothing would exist, and we'd then have to ask why nothing exists.

[NYgs23]

Philosophically you are asking about the state of contingent beings. Since everything exists in this world based on contingent to something else, can that happen without infinite regression? Of course not.

St. Thomas writes:

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

I agree with you, but I'll play Devil's Advocate: Why does the Original Cause exist and how do we know it's an intelligent mind?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

When my parents told me the moon caused the tides when I was younger, I thought they were shitting me.

[oyarde]

when my parents told me the moon caused the tides when i was younger, i thought they were shitting me.

lol

[AxisMundi]

Because if there wasn't a "why," nothing would exist, and we'd then have to ask why nothing exists.

Existence would still exist without a "why", as it is man's inquisitive nature that generates the "why".

[Kludge]

Lol - absolutely ridiculous.

Anyone else reminded of the story of Rollo Goodlove & Ann Coulter in Boondocks? They argue pointlessly in public to stir up controversy but are actually working together. When asked why, Coulter replies "bitch got books to sell."

[teacherone]

Bill O'Reilly Doubles Down On God Controlling The Tides: 'How Did The Moon Get There?'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded