Author Topic: Bill O'Reilly: Proof that God exists? (Read 6503 times)

Flannel Boy · « **on:** October 05, 2008, 07:32:29 PM »

Bill seems to think so. The following is an excerpt from his new book, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity":

Quote

Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know a bold, fresh guy, a barbarian who was raised in a working-class home and retains the lessons he learned there.

Then mention to that atheist that this guy is now watched and listened to, on a daily basis, by millions of people all over the world and, to boot, sells millions of books.

Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don't believe there's a God!

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/367

TVC15 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:34:27 PM »

Bill's new proof just owned Descartes SO HARD. I bet O'Reilly's calculus would also be that much more awesome.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:36:04 PM »

http://crossexamined.org/

These guys have fliers plastered everywhere on campus, even on desks in classes.

edit:

Quote

3. Are Miracles Possible?

If miracles don’t happen as most university professors believe, then Christianity is nonsense. The seminar will show you that not only are miracles possible, but the greatest miracle of all has already occurred and we have scientific evidence for it.

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #3 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:37:07 PM »

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #4 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:43:15 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on October 05, 2008, 07:34:27 PM

Bill's new proof just owned Descartes SO HARD. I bet O'Reilly's calculus would also be that much more awesome.

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #5 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:44:31 PM »

Quote from: Green Man on October 05, 2008, 07:38:19 PM

but does Satan exist?

I once saw a bbc talk show called the big questions. On this episode that was the question. Out side of a jewish guy, an anglican bishop and richard dawkings, the other 5 guests though he did exist and their argument was this: an evil as great as Hitler can only be explained by some elemental evil. SMH.

TVC15 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:45:21 PM »

"Hyperbolic derivatives? CUT HIS MIC!"

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #7 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:47:34 PM »

Quote from: Thanks But No Thanks on October 05, 2008, 07:36:04 PM

http://crossexamined.org/

What's with the meme being pushed by theists that atheism requires faith. I thought faith was supposed to be a wonderful, magical thing.

Quote

75% of Christian youth leave the church after high school.

This is a made up statistic (just think about the current religious make up of the US: were the stat true, there would be very few Christians).

Quote

College professors are five times more likely to identify themselves as atheists than the general public.

That's what education and some free-thinking does.

Eric P · « **Reply #8 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:50:23 PM »

well i'm sold

Fresh Prince · « **Reply #9 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:53:28 PM »

So Bill basically admits he's a dumbass son of a bitch.

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #10 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:53:51 PM »

Quote from: Eric P on October 05, 2008, 07:50:23 PM

well i'm sold

In two years, he'll have a new proof.

Don't believe in God.
WELL LOOK AT ME!
You're looking at God right now, you atheist communist.
PWNED!

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #11 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:56:31 PM »

This really is a whole new level of arrogance.

Bill O'Reilly's Three Proofs of God

1. Bill O'Reilly
2. The O'Reilly Factor
3. Fox News

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #12 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:58:40 PM »

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 07:47:34 PM

Quote from: Thanks But No Thanks on October 05, 2008, 07:36:04 PM
http://crossexamined.org/

What's with the meme being pushed by theists that atheism requires faith. I thought faith was supposed to be a wonderful, magical thing.

it takes faith NOT to believe in god, since he's soooo obvious!

this kinda tells you that these folks don't even really believe what they say

Joe Molotov · « **Reply #13 on:** October 05, 2008, 07:58:59 PM »

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 07:47:34 PM

Quote
College professors are five times more likely to identify themselves as atheists than the general public.
That's what education and some free-thinking does.

College professors are also five times more likely to be dicks than the general public.

Bocsius · « **Reply #14 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:01:12 PM »

I'd say it takes a fair amount of "faith" to think the universe sparked into existence from nothing all by itself and all life we see evolved from a single cell lifeform that also sparked into existence from nothing all by itself.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #15 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:02:12 PM »

*Anecdotal observations incoming*

I grew up in the church. We switched once (pentecostal to non-denominational) but until I moved out and went to college, I was constantly saturated with religion. There was a time when I was extremely religious, almost militantly so and at one point I was taken under the wing by my pastor. Because of this I was always surrounded by religious people and most of my friends were church goers.

Today almost every single person I grew up with has fallen away from christianity, either openly or privately. I played basketball at a strict christian private school. By that time (middle school into early highschool) I was still religious but began branching out. You fucks can laugh all you want but Harry Potter played a major role in this. After I read it and realized there was nothing wrong with it I began questioning my faith more.

Today I don't consider myself religious. I don't think "atheist" college professors turn people away from Christ: once you get to college you're introduced to many new concepts and beliefs, and you wind up having to think for yourself. I remember being shunned by some of my friends/religious advisers/etc when they found out I wasn't interested in going to a Christian college. You really can't grow as a person if you don't challenge yourself with different ideas and beliefs imo.

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #16 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:02:34 PM »

Quote

Bill's new proof just owned Descartes SO HARD. I bet O'Reilly's calculus would also be that much more awesome.

confusing cartes with newton/leibniz?

TVC15 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:09:18 PM »

Quote from: recursivelyenumerable on October 05, 2008, 08:02:34 PM

Quote
Bill's new proof just owned Descartes SO HARD. I bet O'Reilly's calculus would also be that much more awesome.

confusing cartes with newton/leibniz?

I thought Descartes did something important with calculus? I recall something like that being mentioned in some philosophy class.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #18 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:10:35 PM »

Why do so many theists assume that atheists are against making theories on how the universe was created? Atheism just means you don't believe that one sentient being made everything. It's easier to believe that we're a freak physical occurrence than god's image.

descartes tied his philosophy with mathematics. I believe he made analytical geometry or calculus, I might be wrong.

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #19 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:10:42 PM »

Quote from: recursivelyenumerable on October 05, 2008, 08:02:34 PM

Quote
Bill's new proof just owned Descartes SO HARD. I bet O'Reilly's calculus would also be that much more awesome.

confusing cartes with newton/leibniz?

Ya. It should be O'Reilly's illogical coordinate system.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #20 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:11:27 PM »

O'Reillian coordinates

complete with liberal and communist axises

TVC15 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:15:29 PM »

I guess it's this (from wiki):

Quote

Descartes' theory provided the basis for the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, by applying infinitesimal calculus to the tangent line problem, thus permitting the evolution of that branch of modern mathematics.

I never was interested in the history of mathematics, so I didn't know the specifics.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #22 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:19:44 PM »

Descartes is responsible for "I think, therefore I am", right? I don't remember exactly what I read in his book but I think he was one of those old school scientists that rationalize everything in his mind instead of conducting experiments.

TVC15 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:21:48 PM »

I'd always hated descartes. He also looks like a total cigarillo. I'm more of a Hume guy.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #24 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:22:58 PM »

I can't wait to see all the faces of the religious right when fox news is found to be run by the devil and they have been eating his shit and working for his cause this whole time.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #25 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:23:11 PM »

Hume

I ripped apart Descartes' proofs of God for a philosophy paper.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #26 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:23:24 PM »

I never read Hume. What's he known for?

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #27 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:23:37 PM »

being awesome

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #28 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:25:44 PM »

being a dick on Fox News

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #29 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:26:16 PM »

Hume's pretty great.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #30 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:26:39 PM »

In general, I'm more fond of scientists than I am of philosophers. Philosophers are smart but they never try to prove their own theories. Lazy bastards.

Philosophers also tend to be more eloquent than scientists so for a long time, their words meant a lot more even though they were wrong.

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #31 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:30:08 PM »

Quote from: Bocsius on October 05, 2008, 08:01:12 PM

I'd say it takes a fair amount of "faith" to think the universe sparked into existence from nothing all by itself and all life we see evolved from a single cell lifeform that also sparked into existence from nothing all by itself.

Doesn't it take much more faith to believe that an intelligent, all-powerful entity came, uncreated, from nothing, and then preceded to create the entire universe, again, from nothing?
What happened before the bing bang singularity is an interesting question (well, if the question even makes sense with time being tied to space), but introducing god into the discussion is unhelpful.

Life on Earth didn't spring into existence from nothing; the basic building blocks of life existed on Earth billions of years ago.

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 08:26:39 PM

In general, I'm more fond of scientists than I am of philosophers. Philosophers are smart but they never try to prove their own theories. Lazy bastards.

Philosophers also tend to be more eloquent than scientists so for a long time, their words meant a lot more even though they were wrong.

Well, philosophy exists in areas where there is a lack of definite knowledge.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #32 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:31:47 PM »

I thought you were going to give Smooth a primer on Hume, Malek. I never feel qualified to talk about stuff like that on here.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #33 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:34:36 PM »

Quote from: CajoleJuice on October 05, 2008, 08:31:47 PM

I thought you were going to give Smooth a primer on Hume, Malek. I never feel qualified to talk about stuff like that on here.

Why not? It's not like we're geniuses here, except for Prole and his 16 INT.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #34 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:35:25 PM »

man it's nice getting a +3 to my spell rolls

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #35 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:36:54 PM »

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 08:34:36 PM

Quote from: CajoleJuice on October 05, 2008, 08:31:47 PM
I thought you were going to give Smooth a primer on Hume, Malek. I never feel qualified to talk about stuff like that on here.

Why not? It's not like we're geniuses here, except for Prole and his 16 INT.

Because my knowledge of philosophy is limited to basically one shitty intro class. Plus I'm insecure.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #36 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:37:23 PM »

Can an Int of 16 learn LVL 9 spells? I don't remember. :nerd

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #37 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:38:11 PM »

All we did in my philosophy class was watch The Matrix, Office Space, and read the Tao of Pooh

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #38 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:40:02 PM »

sigh Hume's known for his work on religious and empirical skepticism--specifically on rationalism and causality. Like all philosophers, he was wrong about a lot of things, but his thoughts seem fairly modern.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #39 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:40:50 PM »

Actually, I take that back. The grad student was a cool enough dude, and it was easy to get As on every paper. So in retrospect the class was awesome.

Thanks, Malek.

TVC15 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:42:19 PM »

Tao of Pooh

Te of Piglet

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #41 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:42:38 PM »

This thread is about Bill O'Reilly, not lightweights like David Hume.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #42 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:42:51 PM »

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 08:40:02 PM

sigh Hume's known for his work on religious and empirical skepticism--specifically on rationalism and causality. Like all philosophers, he was wrong about a lot of things, but his thoughts seem fairly modern.

Malek

educating the ignorant as usual

Quote from: CajoleJuice on October 05, 2008, 08:36:54 PM

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 08:34:36 PM
Quote from: CajoleJuice on October 05, 2008, 08:31:47 PM
I thought you were going to give Smooth a primer on Hume, Malek. I never feel qualified to talk about stuff like that on here.

Why not? It's not like we're geniuses here, except for Prole and his 16 INT.

Because my knowledge of philosophy is limited to basically one shitty intro class. Plus I'm insecure.

Is that why you can't get a GF?

TVC15 · « **Reply #43 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:43:14 PM »

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 08:40:02 PM

sigh Hume's known for his work on religious and empirical skepticism--specifically on rationalism and causality. Like all philosophers, he was wrong about a lot of things, but his thoughts seem fairly modern.

He's also very easy to read, which gets him lots of bonus points in my book.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #44 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:43:39 PM »

Tantra of Eeyore

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #45 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:43:53 PM »

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 08:42:51 PM

Is that why you can't get a GF?

yes. at least that's what i tell myself

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #46 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:45:39 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on October 05, 2008, 08:43:14 PM

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 08:40:02 PM
sigh Hume's known for his work on religious and empirical skepticism--specifically on rationalism and causality. Like all philosophers, he was wrong about a lot of things, but his thoughts seem fairly modern.

He's also very easy to read, which gets him lots of bonus points in my book.

How do you like Freud's book?

Quote from: CajoleJuice on October 05, 2008, 08:43:53 PM

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 08:42:51 PM
Is that why you can't get a GF?

Yes

I used to be the same way until I found out that the more arrogant and assholish I act, the more chicks find me attractive.

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #47 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:47:08 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on October 05, 2008, 08:43:14 PM

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 08:40:02 PM
sigh Hume's known for his work on religious and empirical skepticism--specifically on rationalism and causality. Like all philosophers, he was wrong about a lot of things, but his thoughts seem fairly modern.

He's also very easy to read, which gets him lots of bonus points in my book.

Compared to his contemporaries.

Smooth read "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding," "Of Miracles," and "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion".

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #48 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:47:34 PM »

"An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding,"

This is what I read.

Madrun Badrun · « **Reply #49 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:47:39 PM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on October 05, 2008, 08:43:14 PM

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 08:40:02 PM
sigh Hume's known for his work on religious and empirical skepticism--specifically on rationalism and causality. Like all philosophers, he was wrong about a lot of things, but his thoughts seem fairly modern.

He's also very easy to read, which gets him lots of bonus points in my book.

No he's not. I'm taking those points away from him.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #50 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:48:50 PM »

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 08:45:39 PM

I used to be the same way until I found out that the more arrogant and assholish I act, the more chicks find me attractive.

Plus you're in med school. That's got to be the ultimate pussy magnet

at least that's how my dad bagged my mom

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #51 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:53:31 PM »

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 08:45:39 PM

I used to be the same way until I found out that the more arrogant and assholish I act, the more chicks find me attractive.

yea i've only read/heard that a million times

i'm not really trying until i move the fuck out anyway

then i'll be banging a different chick every night!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #52 on:** October 05, 2008, 08:54:57 PM »

Quote from: Father_Mike on October 05, 2008, 08:47:39 PM

Quote from: TVC 15 on October 05, 2008, 08:43:14 PM

He's also very easy to read, which gets him lots of bonus points in my book.

No he's not. I'm taking those points away from him.

He's not going to win any style awards. Like many writers of his time, he didn't know when to end a sentence.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #53 on:** October 05, 2008, 09:03:42 PM »

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 08:54:57 PM

Quote from: Father_Mike on October 05, 2008, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: TVC 15 on October 05, 2008, 08:43:14 PM

He's also very easy to read, which gets him lots of bonus points in my book.

No he's not. I'm taking those points away from him.
He's not going to win any style awards. Like many writers of his time, he didn't know when to end a sentence.

He should have kept double-dashing, ala Drinky and Drohne.

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #54 on:** October 05, 2008, 09:08:52 PM »

Quote from: Smooth Groove on October 05, 2008, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: Night Man on October 05, 2008, 08:54:57 PM
Quote from: Father_Mike on October 05, 2008, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: TVC 15 on October 05, 2008, 08:43:14 PM

He's also very easy to read, which gets him lots of bonus points in my book.

No he's not. I'm taking those points away from him.
He's not going to win any style awards. Like many writers of his time, he didn't know when to end a sentence.

He should have kept double-dashing, ala Drinky and Drohne.

He did:

"It is certain that the most ignorant and stupid peasants--nay infants, nay even brute beasts--improve by experience. . . . "

He was, however, a bigger fan of semicolons.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #55 on:** October 05, 2008, 10:41:07 PM »

i'm a big fan of BOTH semicolons and em-dashes. my thoughts are too large for lesser punctuation

i am the very raistlin majere of independent clauses and parenthetical thoughts

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #56 on:** October 05, 2008, 10:43:05 PM »

Sorry but Raistlin's INT was greater than 16.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #57 on:** October 05, 2008, 10:46:10 PM »

that was just due to item bonuses

send me a couple rings of insight +2 and i'll go take over krynn's letters programs

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #58 on:** October 05, 2008, 10:50:06 PM »

How about I send you a Wish spell scroll?

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #59 on:** October 05, 2008, 10:53:51 PM »

awesome, i will trade for this useless half plate +1

News:

Author Topic: Bill O'Reilly: Proof that God exists? (Read 6503 times)