Religion

Insane Cable News Posse

|

Bill O'Reilly waxes theological:

O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?

O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.

Glad we've settled that! Next on The O'Reilly Factor: "Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work?"

NEXT: 'There Is No Definition of a Mental Disorder'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ah yes, the age-old “tide question,” still baffling scientists and oceanographers to this day.

  2. Who sucks more? O’Reilly or Insane Clown Posse? Go!

    1. Totally different animals. ICP sucks, O’Reilly blows.

      And as for O’Reilly’s statement…holy shit. I’ve always hated that blowhard, but I had no idea he was capable of that level of stupidity.

      1. O’Reilly is a Juggalo?

        1. Oh my god, this explains everything.

    2. ICP is at least anti-authoritarian…in its own stupid way.

      1. Wrong. ICP are Christian Rockers, they are just sneaky about it

        1. They played that once, but how serious was that?

          They throw dummy cops in the crowd for their fans to tear apart…

          There’s a thing inherent to every sub-culture like that that runs anti-authoritarian. It’s certainly anti-conformist. Every subculture like that is by definition anti-conformist to some extent–or it wouldn’t be a sub-culture, would it?

          Bill O RLY on the other hand? The man’s all about conforming to the lowest common political denominator and arguing for implementing it by force.

          Just looking at juggalos makes people mad–and they love it! Reminds me of when I was a kid, and people would pull over as they were driving by–just to start some shit with me for my hair.

          One’s anti-authoritarian. The other makes a sacred virtue of our authoritarian instincts. It’s no contest.

          1. Well, Ken, I suppose you could look at it that way, but it seems very cultist to me, and worshiping some (literal) clowns like Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope doesn’t seem anti-authoritarian to me. It’s just a reassignment of authority to them, since juggalos will do anything they say.

            1. No doubt subcultures can be very conformist within themselves–those FLDS ladies all looked the same to me…

              But don’t sub-cultures like that make society at large more accepting of non-conformists generally?

              I’m not saying that juggalos necessarily make the world a better place in every way, or that there aren’t plenty of ’em that act like total jackholes.

              But libertarians should be able to see some positive aspects to promoting anti-authoritarian ideas and non-conformist behavior to society generally. As opposed to someone like Bill O RLY? …whose whole shtick is more or less about promoting intolerance of dissenting views?

        2. Christians arent anti-authoritarian?

          Down with the Romans!!

          1. and the Jews!!

            1. And the Pope!

              1. What about Michael Bay?

  3. Is that the first ever ICP link in a Reason article?

  4. Serious question from someone non-science minded. Does the moon affect anything besides the tides in a significant way?

    1. Not that I know of. But it exists because of an event which had (probably) a major influence on the composition of the Earth, an enormous impact of a Mars-size planet into the Hadean Earth.

      Human-wise, the fact that the phases of the moon were predictable could easily have led to calendars and astronomy seeming like a reasonable idea.

      1. —“But it exists because of an event which had (probably) a major influence on the composition of the Earth, an enormous impact of a Mars-size planet into the Hadean Earth.”—

        Immanuel Velikovsky said much the same thing many years ago and was ridiculed.

        1. Velikovsky was the Bill O’Reilly of physics, with as much reality as the bible ANDed with the koran.

    2. women’s cycles…

    3. Warewolves

      1. Are warewolves creatures that hang out by loading docks when the moon is full?

        1. Excellent.

      2. There wolves

    4. My career.

      1. That works on so many levels.

    5. Lunatics.

    6. In First Contact it masked the Enterprise’s warp signature from the Vulcans. Also, without the moon, life on Earth would likely face the same kinds of wild fluctuations in climate that Mars has apparently experienced through the eons. Its spin axis no longer maintained by the moon at an angle of 23.5 degrees, Earth could drastically change its tilt in just a few million years, sometimes dipping enough to bring more sunlight to polar regions than to equatorial zones.

      1. OMG!!! Save the moon! There’s got to be some coin in that.

        1. lunar climate catastrophe

      2. It was also a vessel for Martin Landau and Barbara Bain after a freak explosion near the moonbase threw it out of its orbit and into deep space.

        1. My dear boy, that never happened.

          Now that’s out of the way, have you ever personally experienced the splendor of Sri Lanka?

        2. Actually, that’s a good point. Since the Moon blasted out of orbit in 1999, the old theory that tides were primarily caused by the Moon has been discredited.

      3. Please explain what the moon does to “maintain” the tilt of the earth.

        1. Yeah, I found what Wasabi wrote doubtful as well.

          1. A quick interweb search says that it’s the shape of the earth that determines its tilt and wobble.

        2. http://findarticles.com/p/arti….._13533907/

          I don’t really know if it is true

    7. Seer|1.6.11 @ 1:19PM|#
      Serious question from someone non-science minded. Does the moon affect anything besides the tides in a significant way?

      Serious answer:

      It also helps stabilize the Earth’s rotation, minimizing the ‘wobble’. This means that the axial tilt does not vary much and our seasonal patterns don’t become too extreme.

      1. Don’t you DARE fucking tell ME that seasonal patterns aren’t becoming extreme.

      2. Won’t that be a problem when we eventually lose it then?

        1. cynical,

          That won’t happen for 50 billion years, and it won’t be “lost”, just much farther away. The seas will have boiled away from Earth in about a billion as the sun becomes more luminous. In 5 billion the sun will consume both. So no it’s not really an issue.

        2. And we could get it back if we really really wanted it.

      3. Does this mean we could control the climate by moving the Moon around? Hmmmm.

        1. We should just blow it the fuck up because that would be really awesome.

      4. Serious answer: Yes!

        Every liquid on the planet and then some…

        You are mainly composed of liquid…

        Now go analyze what happens in the financial markets, when there’s a full moon above…

        Then go make the $$$…

        1. Board malfunctioning, reply totally misplaced.

    8. lame poetry

      1. I wonder who owns that moon?

    9. It’s where the monolith was found 10 years ago!

    10. It’s where the monolith was found 10 years ago!

    11. It is slowing the Earth’s rotation by a small fraction…

    12. Serious answer: Yes!

      Every liquid on the planet and then some…

      You are mainly composed of liquid…

      Now go analyze what happens in the financial markets, when there’s a full moon above…

      Then go make the $$$…

    13. I’ve always thought that Earth having such a big-ass moon (Moon is freaky-huge moon for little rock planet like Earth to have…utterly unique in Solar System) constantly pulling on the Earth’s core one way then another (see tides) has contributed to keeping the core molten due to long-term elastic deformations (epoch-long ‘rock tides’ if you will).

      I believe this has had greater input on Earth’s still-warm hearth compared to the dead rocks of Mars or Venus, at least more than current understanding of the subject gives credit for.

      Since the molten core is the huge dynamo that generates Earth’s magnetic field (again an oddity for little-rock planet) critical impact on things like the earth’s magnetic field, and therefore ionizing radiation reaching the surface, and therefore life, etc.

      Just my two cents anyways.

  5. Its just like those little people in the box in my living room – you press a button, and they are there. And they are the perfect size to fit in the magic box – my friend has a much bigger magic box, and the people in that box are bigger!!!! They fit in that magic box perfectly!!!! No randomness, no luck. Perfect.
    That is design my friend.
    Try and expalin it without design…you just can’t. A magic box means there’s a magic box designer…case closed.

    1. Refrigerator lights…how do they work?

      1. The light is only on when there is a conscious being there to perceive it.

        1. Schrodinger’s mustard?

          1. Oh, and you were so close: Schr?dinger’s catsup.

            1. See? You opened the door too soon.

              1. I always do. Cats are useless, but quantum catsup is good. That’s Heinz’s secret ingredient–cats in superposition.

                1. Is it radioactive?

                  1. Of course. Everything we eat is.

                2. cats in superposition.

                  Is it anything like this?

                  1. Quite similar in many respects.

            2. + to infinity and beyond

    2. Who keeps tossing logs on the Sun to keep it going? Or replaces all those candles every night? Explain that one secular chumps!

      1. I mean ‘pinheads!’

  6. It is not so much magnets as gravitational pull… but still *siiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhh*

    1. Well, yes, gravity and all that, but then how do you explain gravity? Well???

      1. oh yeah? So how do you ‘splain new and improved Tide…with stain fighter!

      2. I doubt O’Reilly has actually taken it that far, but you are right. We don’t really have a simple understanding of gravity, or any of the four basic forces for that matter. We’ve learned to model them mathematically and put them to use but we really don’t know what they are.

      3. I doubt O’Reilly has actually taken it that far, but you are right. We don’t really have a simple understanding of gravity, or any of the four basic forces for that matter. We’ve learned to model them mathematically and put them to use but we really don’t know what they are.

        1. Oh fine, ask us to blindly trust in mathematics and observation. What’s next, trusting in the free market as the most efficient distribution of goods and services? Do you take me for a fool, sir??

        2. Got a problem with “exchange of gravitons”? Not that we have seen them or can figure out how they move instantaneously.

          1. Oh yeah, bring up you fancy invisible gravitons. Why don’t we just call them Midichlorians.

            1. Never mention that word here.

              1. “Where is Padme?

                NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

                1. Have you seen the review, yet? I love Plinkett like an insane cousin you can’t talk about but is fun at family events.

                  1. It is masterful. His weariness perfectly captures my own. He’s is at his best when he’s carefully explaining that the plot makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

                    1. What I like is that he often articulates points that had only been a vague discomfort for me to begin with.

                      I liked that he questioned the whole idea of a Vader-focused trilogy. Even the first three movies weren’t really all about Luke. And, as he notes, if you’re going to do a character study for three whole films, then you’d damned well better do a good job of it and be sure to make the character compelling.

                      He also noted that Vader wasn’t actually going to do any better than he did at the end of Return of the Jedi–redemption is pretty much the ultimate climax in a character study.

                      One thing I came out of the prequels with was this feeling that Anakin wasn’t all that good to begin with, and the reasons for his fall were completely lame.

                2. “You? get your 7 foot 2 asthmatic ass back here before I tell everyone what a whiny bitch you were about Paddmamee or Panda Bear or whatever the hell her name is!”

                  1. What’s an aluminum falcon?

            2. I’ve got some gravitons right here in my office.

              1. Oooo. Chocolate covered?

                1. Is there any other kind?

        3. I doubt O’Reilly has actually taken it that far, but you are right. We don’t really have a simple understanding of gravity, or any of the four basic forces for that matter. We’ve learned to model them mathematically and put them to use but we really don’t know what they are.

          Science constantly raises our understanding to new heights of confusion.

      4. Spin networks. Or, if you are into that kind of thing, one of the 10^500 string theories.

        1. You refer to the fiction side of physics?

          1. But of course.

          2. Wow. Libertarians do think alike. I want to ‘string’ Brian Greene up.

      5. I like the entropic force explanation, except that using the assumptions posited, we get Newtonian rather than Einsteinian gravity. So, for now, I have to accept action at a distance and all the other strange problems that arise from relativity.

        1. I am still a Van Flandern fan…may not be perfect but answers many questions.

          pool balls on a pool table

        2. So, for now, I have to accept action at a distance and all the other strange problems that arise from relativity.

          Spooky action at a distance is a Relativity Hater, not a Relativity Lover.

  7. LMAO! Ok that was hilarious.

  8. How do it know?

  9. You know how some people have speculated that the Westboro Baptist Church is just trolling, or that maybe they’re a setup devised to discredit fundamentalists?

    I wonder if O’Reilly is the SoCons answer to that approach. He is so intellectually unremarkable that it’s difficult to imagine him being genuine.

    1. I would not call five standard deviations below normal intelligence “intellectually unremarkable.”

      “Stupid” perhaps, but not “unremarkable.”

  10. Wow, this is even better than when O’Reilly told Dawkins that a heliocentric solar system is a matter of interpretation and not scientific fact.

  11. O’Really is a Pierson’s Puppeteer?

    1. If only O’Rielly would enter a coma state when challenged.

      1. Huh?

        When challenged, they turn and kick with their back leg.

        1. Sorry, when frightened, Mr. Nitpicky Niven Expert.

          1. damn skippy!

            And while Im being nitpicky I wouldnt call it a coma state.

            1. For some reason I realized yesterday how bad I really, really, really, really want a Ringworld movie to be made. Properly.

              No Michael Bay. No Paul Verhoeven. No John Woo.

              1. “Properly”

                Keep dreaming, little buddy. Keep dreaming.

                1. That is the key word. And the scary one. But, despite some picky issues (give me Tom Bombadil!), I thought LoTR was done properly.

                  1. I would say–and I (was) am a huge Peter Jackson fan–that it was done as well as could be done. Not “properly”, just “well”.

                    1. Not “properly”, just “well”.

                      Fair enough. Thats an acceptable level for Ringworld too, IMO.

                      I mean, I know there would be cuts and changes, but as long as the grand vision of the story is kept and we get amazing CGI views of the Ringworld, I would be happy.

                      Hmmm…let a director take a shot at Integral Trees. If he can pull it off, he gets to make Ringworld.

                    2. They can’t even get Rama made and that is a whole lot more movie friendly than Ringworld.

                      You’d think they’d go for Moties first. Think of the merchandising potential.

                    3. You’d think they’d go for Moties first. Think of the merchandising potential.

                      Scope is too large for a movie. Thats a mini-series.

                    4. Nah, you could cut that down to make a decent semi-action flick, which would sell it to the suits.

                      The best part is all you have to do is to re-purpose and slightly modify all that surplus Ewok merchandise.

                    5. They can’t even get Rama made and that is a whole lot more movie friendly than Ringworld.

                      Rama bored me. I dont get it. Well, not bored in a “I put it down” sense, but in a “havent thought about it since I finished it” way.

                    6. That’s the thing about Ringworld, it’s even more massive in scope than Mote or Rama. The first book alone could be a 3-parter.

                      Now, Man-Kzin Wars, that would be a helluva TV series.

                    7. The first book alone could be a 3-parter.

                      With a bit of cutting and willingness to go 2.5 hours, the first book can be a single movie.

                      Now, Man-Kzin Wars, that would be a helluva TV series.

                      Duh.

                      As would Legacy of Heorot, as long as you were willing to end it after about 3 seasons. Plenty of characters to expand upon. Plus, I really want a good colonization TV show. BTW, Season 1 ends with the main guy walking away into the mountains.

                    8. Niven, from a slashdot interview:

                      Sure I’m jealous, and angry. I’ve waited too long to take my family to a movie made from my works, and now my mother’s gotten to old to go. I’m glad to see Brin’s “The Postman” on the big screen. I like his message. But I’d like to see Harry the Mailman, from “Lucifer’s Hammer”, up there too.

                      And sure I’ve sold rights and options, and written a Star Trek cartoon and sold an Outer Limits episode, but it’s not the same as walking into a theater. Movies cost a lot more than options do.

                      Yes, I would like to see my works made into movies. All of them. Short stories as well as novels. Why not? A movie doesn’t ruin a book; the book is still there, unchanged, and may even see a larger audience. See Vince Gerardis of Created By, my agent, if you’ve just won a lottery.

                    9. “I mean, I know there would be cuts and changes,”

                      Like cutting down on the misogyny?

                    10. The main problem I have with the LotR movies was the one elf with a huge nose. I think it was Haldir. And he’s in the movies enough that it just ruins much of them for me. Seriously, an elf with a huge nose?

                  2. AHHHHH!!!!…In the special features some dumb bitch screenwriter said “Tolkien didn’t understand drama” as a way to justify Faramir’s role change from the shining example of human goodness to another Boromir. FUCK THAT PISSES ME OFF…Tom Bombadil be damned…Faramir vs Boromir IS A KEY PLOT ELEMENT. (while I think Tom was a drug induced diversion i would still be okay with him in or out of the movies).

              2. No Michael Bay. No Paul Verhoeven. No John Woo.

                James Cameron it is.

                1. James Cameron it is.

                  At least it would make a lot of money.

                  1. Nah. Cameron would just make a movie called Circleworld about the adventures of Larry Sydney Too and claim it as a totally original work.

                    1. Didn’t Cameron do Dr. Wonderful’s Sing-a-long?

                    2. Give him time. I can’t wait for his unacknowledged remake of Blade Runner entitled Rainy Day Robot Killer Man (?).

                    3. Abyssvataranic.

                      It’s coming. You can count on it.

              3. Molly Ringworld? Sixteen Candles is as properly done as a movie can get.

      2. Well, he is insane.

        At least we know where he keeps the other head hidden.

    2. I wonder how much we can get in blackmail for that information.

      1. One MILLION [pinky] stars.

  12. O’Reilly can’t open his mouth without betraying his severe case of moron.

  13. “Bill O’Reilly waxes theological:”

    I see what you did there. 🙂

  14. O’REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can’t explain that.

    The Discovery Institute should feature a tide simulator as part of their “Evidence for Creation” museum collection. O’Reilly may be on to something here . . .

  15. You reverse racist ICP haters don’t realize that the ICP is to rap music what Chris Dudley was to the NBA.

  16. I actually caught this for a second. I was waiting for the guy to say, “Hey O’Reilly, ever heard of the moon?” but, he didn’t. Don’t know who that guy was, but he wasn’t making a good case for atheists being any smarter than religious people I gotta say. Not that they are, but many think they are.

    1. Yeah, I wasn’t impressed with his performance.

      1. Neither was I.

  17. O’Reilly rather badly tries to illustrate a serious philosophical problem. That is why does our universe exist with the physical laws and constants that it does. There is no reason why it does. You can mathematically construct any infinite number of universes with consistent natural laws that are totally antithetical to our existence. The question is why order rather than chaos? This has been a huge problem for cosmologists and philosophers since the discovery of the big bang as the origin of the universe. Indeed, Hawking Mlodinow admit the problem in their new book “The Grand Design”. They state

    “”it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire Universe, and that is much more difficult to explain.”

    Their solution is the multiverse. They posit that an infinite number of universes in addition to our own exist. Therefore, there has to be one operating by our laws and that is by necessity the one we live in. That strikes me as every bit as much of a faith based solution to the problem as God.

    But O’Reilly was hitting on a valid point and a real problem for atheists. He just did so in a very clumsy way.

    1. “The question is why order rather than chaos?”

      Order? Anyone asking that question has never been to my bank on government benefits check day.

    2. This is just the Prime Mover problem, and it’s not any more of a problem for atheists than for believers. If you state that the universe exists as is because God set it in motion, then you next have to ask what made God.

      1. Faith, Warty. God was made by faith. Still is.

      2. There is a simple answer for that:

        only things within the universe are subject to the prime mover problem. Same rules dont apply extra universally, as concepts like “time” and “cause” only exist within the laws of the universe.

        1. And now you’re speculating as much as Steven Hawking, aren’t you?

        2. That isn’t a simple answer, or any answer at all.

          If you are willing to admit that there are ANY cases for which the rule doesn’t apply, then you have absolutely no grounds to asset that the rule applies to the universe as a whole in the first place: we have no way to talk about or generalize about what the basic nature of a “universe” is: we can only observe things going on inside the only one we know of.

          So either it’s a mandatory rule or it isn’t. If it isn’t, what evidence do you have that it applies to the ultimate nature of the universe? Are you prepared to explain how the universe works? Based on what? Your extensive experience with other universes, or comprehensive knowledge of this one?

          Put it another way: the universe is the CONTEXT in which we observe laws. Insisting that the laws we see within it MUST apply to the thing itself is a logical category error.

        3. The prime mover problem applies to reality in general, not just the universe.

      3. Um, no. Atheists have the burden of proof at that point, as they claim that everything in the universe is in principle explainable (even if we don’t currently have an explanation). An uncaused cause is not explainable given our fundamental cause-and-effect understanding of the world.

        1. they claim that everything in the universe is in principle explainable

          So then why am I supposed to explain the beginning of the universe to you, you crusted-over anal cyst?

          1. You don’t have to explain it, you just have to show it is explainable. Or at least, show that arguments claiming it isn’t explainable are fallacious.

        2. Atheists have the burden of proof at that point, as they claim that everything in the universe is in principle explainable (even if we don’t currently have an explanation).

          No they don’t. Atheists just don’t believe in gods. They don’t necessarily espouse any ideas of positivism.

          1. Ah, but any unexplainable influence on the universe is essentially a god. Plenty of theists don’t believe in weightlifters with beards sitting on clouds either.

            1. No, an unexplainable influence on the universe is an unexplainable influence on the universe. Gods are different, and transcendence is a far from universal attribute.

      4. It is more than just a prime mover problem because it is about more than just what created the universe. It is about why the universe is what it is. Why is the gravitational constant or any number of other constants just so instead of something else that would make intelligent life impossible? There is no earthly reason for them to be just so. They just are. Further, the chances of the universe just happening to develop with just these constants is nearly infinity to one. Yet, here why are. If there is only one universe, that is pretty powerful circumstantial evidence for some kind of purposeful design of the universe. That is why people like Hawking are offering the multi-verse as a solution to the problem. It is really the only alternative explanation left outside of there being a God.

        1. I don’t have a fucking clue any more than you. My answer is to say, “I dunno”, yours is to say, “I dunno, God did it”, and Steven Hawking’s is to speculate and do some math. His seems the most productive.

          1. You are right. We are all on the same level. It is all just speculation. But people like Hawking don’t like that. They want to retain smug condescension over anyone with a different speculation from theirs.

            Until Hawking can show me physical evidence of other universes, I think he is engaging in as much of a faith based exercise as any theist.

            1. He’s at least trying to prove it rather than writing shitty poetry about how there was only one set of footprints in the sand.

              1. By definition, you can’t prove the multiverse conjecture (which is not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory). If it’s possible for information to travel between parallel universes, they’re not parallel universes.

              2. LOL That is funny Mo. I fail to see how making up universes that he admits we will probably ever be able to detect is any different than the religious writing you so deride. At least the religious stuff is good literature.

                1. Did you just call the poem about the stupid footprints in the sand good literature, John? Now you’ve gone way too far.

                  1. There’s plenty of stupid atheist writings too, Warty.

                    1. Of course Tulpa would defend that poem. Maybe you should pray for a decent web designer, god-boy.

                    2. I’m no god, only a level 3 upsilonan. (We couldn’t use theta because of you-know-who).

                    3. I was mesmerized by the footprints cursor drag icon. The peyote seems to be kicking in.

                  2. No Warty. I meant other religious writing. Not that. Sorry for the confusion.

          2. Astronomer: “The sun will expand and envelope the Earth in about a billion years.”

            Me: “What did you say!!?”

            Astronomer: I said the Earth will be destroyed in about a billion years.”

            Me: “Whew! I thought you said a Million.”

        2. If you get a crank call from a person dialing random numbers, that doesn’t mean there’s some overarching purpose in the universe to you being the one to get that call. Even though the probability of any particular number being dialed is nearly zero, once you know that you received the call, you know for sure that they dialed your number. I hate do go all Bayesian on you, but it’s not an unlikely event when looked at from a future time.

        3. If there is only one universe, what exists “outside” it? God? What exists outside him, then?

          The simplest answer is that we don’t have the brains or the math to understand the universe at this point, and saying “God” is the weakest fucking explanation there is. It’s saying “I don’t know, so I must ascribe it to purposeful design, instead of admitting I just don’t know”.

          1. Saying “there are other universes out there but we just can’t detect them or provide any physical evidence of them” is no different than saying there is a God out there.

            Maybe you want to believe in the God of the multiverse. That is your freedom. And maybe you are right. But don’t sit around and pretend that you are doing anything but acting our of faith.

            1. I didn’t say a fucking word about believing in the multiverse, I merely addressed your “God and one universe” comment. I thought I made it clear that I don’t fucking know, and I am willing to admit that. Any chump who says “I don’t know, so God did it” is actually saying that they do know; they know that God did it. Which is contradictory and stupid. Have the balls to admit you don’t know. I sure don’t know.

              1. Then admit you are an agnostic. Because the nature of being an “atheist” is saying you do know.

                1. No, John, you’re not getting me. I am an atheist. I know God didn’t do it, and for all the fucking same reasons you’ve heard before but refuse to listen to in your faith-induced coma. But I know that I can’t explain or understand the structure of the universe at this time. I do believe that we will be capable of understanding it eventually; but at this point we just don’t know.

                  1. “But I know that I can’t explain or understand the structure of the universe at this time.”

                    I would say you think you can explain a lot about the structure of the universe at this time. Saying you know God didn’t create it, is answering the most fundamental and important question about it.

                    1. You know, John, you really are the TEAM RED joe.

                      1. You have WAY too much time and energy for posting at your government job. You’re goldbricking on our tax dollars.

                      2. You are stubborn as a mule, and have great difficulty admitting being wrong on things you care a lot about (you are better than joe about this, though).

                      3. You are extremely partisan, yet will often deny being so even when it’s super obvious.

                      4. There are certain subject you will go into a frenzy regarding, no matter how much evidence or logical thought is thrown your way. Like now.

                      Congrats.

                    2. Old news. That’s why there’s a firefox filter out there to filter him from Hit and Run.

                    3. INCIF is for people who don’t know how to scroll down.

                    4. Stop projecting Episiarch. What do you want from me? I don’t agree with you. Takes two to argue doesn’t it? Why don’t you admit when you are wrong? You are the one who can’t stand the fact that someone out there actually disagrees with you. You are the one who gets angry and starts throwing out insults.

                      It is a free country. I am free to disagree with you. You don’t like that, go be a fucking liberal and stop claiming to believe in anything but conformity and coercion. Otherwise, be willing to defend your position or shut up.

                  2. I do believe that we will be capable of understanding it eventually; but at this point we just don’t know.

                    Christians also believe that they will eventually know everything, as it all will be explained at the Last Judgement.

                2. Dictionary.com defines atheist as “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.” So yes, I am an atheist.

              2. But you’re implying that you not only don’t know but don’t care. Permanent agnosticism (which is what most agnostics practice) is more of an attitudinal condition than an intellectual one.

                1. Where the fuck did I imply I didn’t care? Care to make up some more of my opinions? Maybe you can assume I like Brett Ratner movies?

                  1. Your actions speak louder than words.

                    1. You really are an idiot. I’m impressed.

                    2. See, more proof you don’t care.

                    3. Actually, if he didn’t care, why would he post? I think everyone cares in some form (hell looks hot and pointy and I can’t prove its not there). Some just display it more than others.

                    4. Good god, calm down, everyone. I don’t know what’s gotten you so hot under the collar, Epi, but John’s not saying anything particularly idiotic or incendiary. All he’s saying is you don’t know any better than he does why the universe is and how it came to be.

                      If he chooses to say God and you don’t, fine. But neither of you KNOWS any better than the other.

                      Chill the fuck out, all of you.

              3. SIMPSON’S DID IT!!

            2. Saying “there are other universes out there but we just can’t detect them or provide any physical evidence of them” is no different than saying there is a God out there.

              This is the most absurd bunch of horse shit I’ve seen all day, and I say that having also watched a few seconds of an ICP video with the sound turned off.

              1. “This is the most absurd bunch of horse shit I’ve seen all day”

                So absurd you can’t be bothered with explaining why. Okay.

                1. You’re equating a theory posited by people well studied in this particular field and reinforced by a lifetime of scientific finding and NOT presented as absolute fact to some ancient fairy tale concocted for lack of a better explanation. Is that satisfactory?

                  1. And that’s not to mention the relentlessly dogmatic expectations of subservience that commonly trail the latter. Is anyone expecting me to atone for my disagreements with Dawkins lest I burn in hell? Tell me again, John, exactly how are these things no different from one another?

                    1. Seems to me like you’re attributing problems you have with organized religion to what is more a philosophical debate on cosmology/meta-physics. I don’t get that John is saying there’s a bearded white dude up in the sky that is going to send you to eternal damnation for banging another dude. Rather, I think he’s saying its possible that there exists and extra-physical force, something non-quantifiable and non-material that must exist as a logical context from which everything else springs. God is simply the word used to relay that concept, although its a poor word choice with a lot of more militant anti-authoritarian rationalists like ourselves because its loaded with thousands of years of human repression and subjugation done in its name.

                  2. “You’re equating a theory posited by people well studied in this particular field and reinforced by a lifetime of scientific finding”

                    LOL. Appeal to authority much? That is absurd. They admit themselves there is unlikely to ever be any detection or physical proof of alternate universes. Yet, posit their existence anyway. That is not science. That is philosophy. And no amount of PHDs gives them any monopoly over that truth.

                    Try again.

                    1. Psychodrama!

                    2. By definition you cannot detect an alternate universe. If you can, it’s part of this universe.

                    3. Oops. I totally missed the the cue for when I’m supposed to sheepishly respond to John’s idiotic non-sequitur about appealing to authority.

                    4. It’s hilarious how TEAM RED suddenly picked up “appeal to authority” as the choice nuclear option in any argument ever since the East Anglia debacle. Meteorology…quantum mechanics…..what’s the difference?

                  3. The multiverse proposition is only a conjecture. It’s not falsifiable, so it cannot properly be called a theory, or even a hypothesis, and certainly cannot be treated in a scientific manner.

                    1. Not sure it is not falsifiable.

        4. If there is only one universe, that is pretty powerful circumstantial evidence for some kind of purposeful design of the universe.

          That’s a fallacy. Life exists as it does because the universe as it does. If the gravitational constant was different, it’s possible that intelligent life would exist, but in a completely different form than we’re accustomed to. We’re just limited in our understanding of the various iterations that life could emerge.

          Why would an all powerful God be so insecure as to need to create a universe full of little nothings that worship him. It’s not like Japanese engineers expect their robots to worship them.

          1. That is not a fallacy at all. See my response to Tupa below. You can say for certain the following.

            1. We and the universe around us exists.
            2. That that universe by necessity of our existence contains a certain set of natural laws.

            That is it. That is all you can say. Once you start saying “those laws came about by chance” or “those laws came about by God” or anything about how or why those laws are what they are, you are engaging in speculation and faith.

            1. But no one know if those laws are necessary for any intelligent life to evolve. If G had a value of 6.67 * 10^-4 instead of 10^-11, life as we know it wouldn’t exist, but life in a completely different form might. We don’t have the computational power or understanding of the universe to figure that out. It’s possible in some Turtledovian alternate history that that’s the possibility and there are odd forms of life thinking that life would be impossible with our low gravitational constant.

              You can’t look at the consequences and say that implies a creator since you don’t know how many other iterations would lead to intelligent life.

              1. Sure some of them would. But the vast majority of them wouldn’t. Yet, here we are in this great ordered universe. That is awfully suspicious. I don’t think you can just dismiss it out of hand. Even Hawking doesn’t do that. As I said in the first post, even he admit that it is a problem if you want to believe there is a natural explanation for everything.

                1. Yet, here we are in this great ordered universe.

                  Order, what order? Shit’s blowing up all the time. Planets spinning off into nothingness. Things crashing. Just because we can’t see it on a daily basis doesn’t mean its not happening. An ant in the middle of the beach during Normandy might think the world is pretty ordered if all he knows is the piece of driftwood that he lives in isn’t blown to bits in the firefight around him.

                  1. We have an ordered universe in that the physical laws are the same everywhere and are such that they allow life as we know it. Those planets spinning off into nothingness aren’t following different laws of gravity than us. Light isn’t traveling at a different speed on the other end of the galaxy.

                    1. My existence with my current genetic makeup is infinitesimally small. My parents had to meet out of millions of people and one of my dad’s sperm out of millions of different combination of chromosomes and genes had to hit just the right one of my mom’s eggs. Just because that happened doesn’t mean there’s a divine influence on how everything ended up.

                    2. “Just because that happened doesn’t mean there’s a divine influence on how everything ended up.”

                      Since there are billions of people out there, that is true. But if there is only one universe, the fact that it worked out perfectly for us is problematic. Jesus, even Hawking admits it is a problem for scientific atheists.

                    3. We find out physical laws we assumed held true can change if we change the scale. Explain black holes. Extreme mass that cannot be seen? Ant..Normandy.

                    4. The fact that black holes are not visible is actually a prediction of the relativitistic light-bending that happens near any massive object in the universe. The large mass of the black hole simply bends the light toward it more, to the point where it can’t escape.

                    5. There are no black holes.

              2. Ah, but then we arrive at the thorny questions like “what is life” and “what is intelligence”, both of which we find vexing even dealing with terrestrial entities (viruses in the former case, dolphins/octopi/ravens in the latter).

          2. Why would an all powerful God be so insecure as to need to create a universe full of little nothings that worship him.

            Maybe he’s just bored? Maybe he was abused by a trusted deity as a child and has some control issues?

            1. More likely a figment of one’s imagination, like multiverse theory.

        5. after you’ve won the lottery, the contemplation that the odds were a million to one that you would do so don’t make you think the lottery was rigged (most of the time), it just demonstrates that you are one lucky son of a bitch.

          1. You know you one it by chance because you know the lottery system and how it works. We don’t know that about the universe. What if instead of winning the lottery, you just woke up with a million dollars in your account and had no explanation why. That is more analogous to the situation we are in.

            1. just because we don’t understand how the universal lottery works doesn’t mean that it was rigged. Of course, we’re just talking in circles.

              1. “just because we don’t understand how the universal lottery works doesn’t mean that it was rigged.”

                For sure we don’t. And never can. But winning a trillion to one long shot doesn’t exactly rule out the fact that it was rigged does it?

                None of this proves or disproves the existence of God. But it does take away the conceit that believing in a creator is somehow irrational or stupid. It is not. For some reason, admitting that seems to really bother atheists.

                1. Know, believing in a creator is not irrational or stupid. Believing that you know what said creator wants from us on a daily basis IS irrational and stupid. Thus, existentially a clockmaker god may or may not exist, but a super human ruler needs a higher level of proof before I fall on my knees and doest his bidding.

                  1. Perhaps you’re not doing a deity’s bidding, but for what reason do you do what you do?

                    1. For the only reason, it benefits me (that includes charity and cooperation, without which, society would not be able to properly function)

                    2. “Benefits” implies a value judgement. From where do you get your values used in this judgement?

                2. Of course beliving in a creator is irrational and stupid. So is beliving in multiverse theory.

    3. With that line of argument, you’d award any kid discharging a shotgun inside a barn with a marksmanship prize for hitting it, so long as they weren’t pointing it at the floor.

    4. That’s an awful lot of words to stick up for Bill. If that was indeed his motivation, he wasn’t just clumsy. I mean, that was well, WELL beyond clumsy. That he didn’t get called out on it on the spot is amazing. Maybe Bill would then have clarified himself in a manner similar to what you’re describing. But he should have done that anyway if he had even an ounce of self-awareness as to how immensely stupid he sounded.

    5. I seriously doubt that was what O’Reilly was arguing.

      In any case, the “fine tuning” problem you mention is easily explained by the fact that if the constants weren’t what they are, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Given the fact that we exist, the probability of those constants having those values is near 100% so it’s not a strange coincidence at all.

      The multiverse conjecture is not the only possible explanation for many different sets of physical laws holding sway, either. It’s also possible that every Big Bang is followed by a Big Crunch where the universe returns to its primordial state as a point in space containing all its mass-energy, only to Big Bang again at some time in the future with different laws.

      What you’re ultimately touching on is the cosmological argument of Aristotle, Aquinas and others, for God’s existence. That since everything in the universe is caused by something else, there must be either no beginning to the universe (which is a very strange thought indeed) or an “uncaused cause” at the beginning that is not explainable by our usual understanding of how the world works.

      1. We are here, therefore it happened that way is begging the question. Yes, we are here. Yes, the universe is as it is. But, if you have no explanation as to why the universe is as it is, you are just saying we are here because we won the cosmic lottery. Maybe we did. But that is the ultimate question isn’t it? Are we here because of cosmic chance or God? You are just assuming the answer is cosmic chance and thus begging the question.

        1. That’s not begging the question at all. There is evidence that we exist (solipsists notwithstanding) and our existence implies that certain physical constants have to be in very tight ranges.

          Begging the question is when you are proving the conclusion using the conclusion itself, but my analysis uses the evidence that we exist, which is independent of the conclusion.

          1. “There is evidence that we exist (solipsists notwithstanding) and our existence implies that certain physical constants have to be in very tight ranges.”

            All that proves is that we exist and that certain physical laws are true. It says nothing about why or how those laws came into existence. Anything beyond that is speculation and faith on your part.

            1. How is you’re argument anything more than another God of the Gaps argument?

              1. No. The argument says nothing about God’s power or affect on the universe. It is a variation on the teleological argument.

              2. The causality “gap” created by the cosmological argument of Aquinas et al is fundamentally different from other “gaps” in that is not merely unexplained, but unexplainable.

                1. Unexplainable given our current knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Tell me, what logically prevents a scientific explanation for the creation, existence, and stability of natural laws?

                  Considering that we haven’t even discovered a coherent scientific law that marries the laws quantum physics and gravitational laws, it seems foolish to expect that scientist can explain how laws came into being.

                  1. Science is fundamentally based on cause and effect reasoning. An uncaused effect is not treatable using science.

                    1. That’s the thing, you are positing that laws are uncaused … perhaps that assumption needs to be altered. Scientist obviously don’t know enough about the laws we know to exist to even be positing assumptions about how those laws came into existence.

                      We don’t know jack shit about laws governing the universe. Atheist that attempt to use the laws to disprove God are misguided for that reason. But it’s equally silly to posit God as the source simply because our current understanding is minuscule and our imaginations stunted.

            2. Indeed, but atheists and believers rarely get in fights over the existential question of what does and does not exist. Its the practical effects of the believers believing they know what the unknown unknowable wants from us (all of us) that leads to the friction.

        2. We are here, therefore it happened that way is begging the question.

          It’s not begging the question. You’re abusing probability. Any event is almost infinitely improbably, if you consider it individually, including your own existence. You can’t do probabilities retrospectively.

          1. It is totally begging the question. We know the following

            1. We are here
            2. The chances of us being here by pure chance are very small.

            You can’t get from those to truths to “Therefore the odds must of worked out in our favor”. Doing that assumes that there is no intervening cause that changed the odds (i.e. a God), which is of course the whole question.

            1. “”2. The chances of us being here by pure chance are very small.””

              Actually, we don’t know that.

              1. We do. We can look at the huge number of constants that exist for no other reason than they happily are that way.

                If you don’t believe me, believe Hawking. If such concerns were so easy to dismiss, no one would have bothered with such an elaborate and kooky theory like the multiverse. The multiverse exists for one reason; the only other alternative was to admit the possibility of divine creation.

                1. “”We can look at the huge number of constants that exist for no other reason than they happily are that way.””

                  How do you know that’s the reason they exist?

            2. It is totally begging the question. We know the following

              1. We are here
              2. The chances of us being here by pure chance are very small.

              You’re asking the wrong question. The correct question is “Given that we are here, what is the probability that the universe can support life?” The answer is 1. Your question is nonsense; you would need more than one universe to answer it.

          2. You can’t do probabilities retrospectively.

            This is precisely what Bayesian analysis does, actually. But your larger point is correct; the conditional probability of the constants being what they are (past event) given our existence (present event) is near 1.

      2. “It’s also possible that every Big Bang is followed by a Big Crunch where the universe returns to its primordial state as a point in space containing all its mass-energy, only to Big Bang again at some time in the future with different laws.”

        In other words, the universe is God breathing.

    6. Isn’t this just anthropic principle 101? duh.

    7. “”This has been a huge problem for cosmologists and philosophers since the discovery of the big bang as the origin of the universe.””

      But why is something like that a problem for the anti-creation folks, and “God did it, the bible says so” can be good enough for the creation folks.

      Creationists do not hold themselves to the same standard of proof.

      1. “But why is something like that a problem for the anti-creation folks,”

        Because they have always dismissed the teleological argument by saying that the universe has always been what it is. The moment the found that the universe was expanding and had once not been here, that wasn’t true anymore. Now we are faced with a universe than came into existence at a set time and came into existence with a whole range of physical laws and constants that allow our existence. That is a lot harder to explain away, especially when you have no provable theory about what actually caused the big bang in the first place.

        1. When theologians put forth any theory about how God or anything God does works, you let me know.

          Otherwise, “a creator did it” is exactly equivalent to saying “something I don’t understand did it in a way I don’t understand” which is exactly equivalent to saying “I have no answer at all.”

          1. Right. Creationist offer no proof about the creation of the universe other than a book said so, or what I call appeal to awesome. It’s so awesome it must have been created by God. Yet, they claim other people must have real evidence about their claim. That’s the disparity.

            1. There is no proof only faith.

          2. Theologians will tell you God is unknowable. And it is the atheists who are claiming there is a rational and natural explanation for everything. When they fail to do that, their claim that there can never be a supernatural explanation for things fails.

            Atheists have no answer but claim to certainty in knowing that God does not exist. That is nothing but faith and no better than theists. In fact it is worse because it is so fundamentally dishonest. At lest theists are honest about their faith.

            1. “” At lest theists are honest about their faith.””

              They become dishonest when they claim faith is proof of who created the universe. And they play a dishonest game when they expect you to have a higher burden of proof than they need.

            2. “Atheists have no answer but claim to certainty in knowing that God does not exist.”

              That is just not true. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Some atheists might make your claim, but it is not explicit from the definition.

            3. “Theologians will tell you God is unknowable.”

              That’s fine, but you can’t make up epistemic rules and then deny them to others. If you can posit an unknowable God to “explain” something, I can posit an unknowable non-god explanation that “explains” it just as “well,” and my mere suggestion of an alternative completely undercuts the argument that “God did it” is a reasonable conclusion.

              “Atheists have no answer but claim to certainty in knowing that God does not exist.”

              Atheists don’t have to make any such claim. We can simply not find any reason to believe your claim. Not finding your arguments persuasive is not “faith.”

        2. Yeah, but my point is about the disparity of required proof from the creationist.

        3. I am not sure that the “big bang” is anymore than a theory. Or ppv

      2. The fact that Bigfoot believers can’t prove Bigfoot exist doesn’t mean Bigfoot doesn’t exist. As a practical matter, we in the audience of the Bigfoot debate can say, well, until they come up with proof that he exists, I’ll behave as if he doesn’t, since even if he does exist he doesn’t have much of an effect on me. (Remember, Occam’s razor is just a rule of thumb…there are instances where it leads one astray, where the seemingly more complicated explanation really is correct)

        1. If you found a camp site in the wilderness that contained huge footprints, and carvings that said “made by Steve Smith Man Raping Sasquatch” wouldn’t that be some evidence of Bigfoot’s existence?

          You assume that we have to bag and tag Steve to at least make some conclusions about his existence. But we don’t.

          1. “I know that my rapist liveth”

          2. Given the amount of crop circles done my teenagers, are you sure you want to take that position John? STEVE SMITH’s footprints were probably done by Episiarch anyway when he was drunk and wearing a bear suit. So going back to the village to yell out your allegiance to STEVE SMITH MAN RAPING SASQUATCH might not be your best move of the day.

            1. I believe in the existence of Steve Smith!!

            2. Of course if I spent a couple of thousand years investigating and ruling out various causes for the Steve Smith phenomenon, I would be in a much better position wouldn’t I?

              1. If you had a couple thousand years to investigate the STEVE SMITH phenomenom, I’d say YOU were a STEVE SMITH. However, there can be only one.

                1. Capturing and tagging the Steve Smith is a multi generational project. Kind of like building a pyramid or cathedral.

        2. “”The fact that Bigfoot believers can’t prove Bigfoot exist doesn’t mean Bigfoot doesn’t exist. “”

          Sure, which misses my point.

    8. No, John, this is unequivocally not what he meant.

    9. Why does the Earth just happen to have an environment that humans can survive on? Same question.

      1. Why is this hole in the ground PERFECTLY formed so as to exactly match this puddle?! It’s impossible! Someone must have designed the hole to precisely fit the puddle!

    10. “”it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire Universe, and that is much more difficult to explain.”

      WTF are you talking about?

    11. “That strikes me as every bit as much of a faith based solution to the problem as God.”

      There’s nothing “faith” based about it, especially if it’s being offered as a logical possibility rather than something anyone thinks is certain: it explains a how in an intelligible fashion. No theological explanation ever bothers to explain how anything God “does” works.

      People constantly play this silly game: switching from debates about logical possibility to actual fact claims.

      A: oh God MUST exist, because there’s no other logical alternative.

      B: But here’s three possibilities, so your claim is refuted.

      A: Prove that they are true!

      B: I didn’t claim they were, don’t have to claim they were. I refuted your claim simply by offering possibility, which refutes your argument of necessity. But… I think I prefer to argue with people that can actually follow arguments, thanks.

      1. “I think I prefer to argue with people that can actually follow arguments, thanks.”

        then don’t get in an argument with yourself. Saying something is “logically possible” doesn’t get you anywhere. So what that it is logically possible that there is an infinite number of universes? There is nothing logically impossible about their being God. We have equal proof of both, which is to say we have no proof.

        No one on this thread claimed the existence of the universe makes the existence of God a necessity, only a decent probability and not irrational.

        Thanks for reinforcing the stereotype that atheists are smug twits.

        1. I think the problem here is that everyone is assuming that for one to believe that the universe was created by a supreme being means that they also believe in the Christian, or Muslim, or whatever religion, idea of God. And that really isn’t what this debate is about.

          The idea itself, that the universe might have been created by some supreme being or force or whatever, divorced from religion, is not really any less rational than the multiverse theory, or any other number of theories out there.

          This isn’t about the Bible or the Qaran or whatever.

        2. “No one on this thread claimed the existence of the universe makes the existence of God a necessity, only a decent probability and not irrational.”

          The teological argument is an argument for the existence of God, resting on the premise that there is no other possible or reasonable explanation. Do away with that premise, and the argument fails.

          I didn’t say that belief is irrational: belief is neither rational or rational: it’s just a belief. But if you want to convince others that you have a rational basis for your belief, then, yes: I can argue that the basis is invalid, and explained why I think it is.

          I’m sorry that that makes you angry.

          Talking about “probability” is meaningless in this context. You can’t calculate the probability of an event or circumstance when you don’t know what the various cases are, or how likely they all are. That would be like saying that there’s a one out of six chance of rolling a five when you don’t know anything about how many sides a die has, or even what numbers are printed on the various sides.

  18. Take that, Galileo, you godless guido!

  19. I bet Bill’s kids look just like Ass Dan.

  20. Silly O’Reilly, it’s not “God” but the Goddess Asherah that controls the tides.

  21. I’m disappointed that Blow up the Moon was not part of this post. Children are our future!

    1. Why can’t we just settle for Nuking it?

      1. I love that. We’re psycho, baby, no telling what we’ll do next. Nuking the Moon would solve most of our problems.

    2. Children. Children.

      Future! Future!

  22. Thou art God. Pretty well sums it up.

  23. And the Lord said “the whole of the ocean shall move back and forth about 15 feet twice a day?”

    1. God made the moon, pinhead!

  24. For anyone that didn’t get their nuts unpunched yesterday.

    1. Notice that the one who was punching the guy in the back with his nightstick ran away like a little girl and left his buddies to be eaten by the mob. Too bad he escaped.

    2. That needs Yackety Sax underneath.

  25. “God behind big bang” – Teh Pope | http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/201…..pe_bigbang

  26. Science is haaaaaaaaaard!

  27. Refrigerator lights…how do they work?

    There is much mystery in the ways of the Little Man in the Refrigerator, my son.

    1. I find the evidence of such a being hardly persuasive.

    2. If a soda can explodes in the freezer, but no one is there to lick it up, did it really happen?

  28. Bill O’Reilly is a scam and I feel bad for the millions of fans he’s duped (my father included).

  29. It always comes in, and always goes out.

    A little of the old in-out, in-out?

  30. For the Big Bang to be true, this math problem must be correct:

    0 x 0 = INFINITY

    1. 0X0==D ~~~~

      and always has

    2. No, it’s more like

      Dimensionless FINITY -> FINITY spread throughout space/time.

  31. Does the Universe exist. By all appearances to the individual, it does. How and why it got here are the ultimate circular, and unanswerable questions, and as such, pointless, despite the amount of time and energy apparently wasted upon seeking ‘answers’ for them. Does ‘God’ exist (shorthand for a higher being, with any interest whatsoever in events) – equally as unanswerable, lacking any direct revelation of existence discernable by everyone’s perception, despite various claims by various humans throughout known history. Equally important, there is as much lack of evidence to the lack of the existence of such an entity, but quite possibly as the result of the inability to prove a negative. Thus, it becomes not a question of solidity or certainty, for anything related to either topic, but one of relevance. Is there an overwhelming relevance to the how or why of any of all this that directly impacts, in a tangible way, the experience of existence within perceived reality? For some, the answer is obviously ‘yes’, possibly through an inability to function without even the imaginary existence of some form of greater stability and order within the maelstrom of chaos that appears to be the state of everything around all of us. A guard against personal insanity that manifests, in its more extreme forms to a type of perceived insanity to other observers of it? In a way, almost certainly. Gotta fucking love it, as it sure ain;t boring vanilla pudding for breakfast, lunch and dinner, at least.

  32. I think O’Reilly would have made Descartes’ head explode.

    1. Cunnilinguo ergo sum.

  33. Moon Pie… what a time to be alive!

  34. Insane Clown Posse died in a plane crash that took out a bridge in Missouri in the Winter of 2004. How the fuck have I slipped into an Earth dimension where that did not happen? It was the only good thing that happens in the 00s. Well, that and Aronofsky starring The Office‘s Jenna Fisher’s big fat titties in that movie about Roller Derby in 2007. Wait, don’t tell me . . .

    1. No. In my universe their plane collided with Kiss’s plane and landed in Simon Crowell’s kitchen causing him to die a slow painful death from the burns.

      1. Whose Kiss? Whose that Simon dude? I googled those names, and trust me, if Gene Simmons or that other guy actually live in my dimension neither has made any impact whatsoever.

        What made that crash so awesome though was how they writhed around all mangled up waiting for the jaws of life thinking that they had been saved, but then the plane caught fire.

        1. Wow. You live in such a just universe. Next you are going to tell me Katie Perry is a renown nude model who has never sang a note in public in her life.

          1. Funny thing, I’ve had maybe fifteen minutes of exposure to American Idol in my entire life, so the only thing I know about SC is that he is one ugly ass Brit. Once saw a pic of him on a yacht so I’m guessing he has a shit load of money.

            1. I have never watched it much either. But my wife used to. The show represents everything that is wrong with popular music. And Crowell act is to basically be a complete prick by picking on sad people who can’t sing but think they can’t. It is basically like getting famous for picking on retarded kids. And then he acts smug like figuring out the William Hung doesn’t have a future in music requires some special talent that he has.

              He is basically the biggest douchebag in the known universe.

              1. Thankfully, my girlfriend isn’t in to that or any reality show. However, she does watch the horny doctor shows, and they are just as insipid if not more so.

      2. “”No. In my universe their plane collided with Kiss’s plane and landed in Simon Crowell’s kitchen causing him to die a slow painful death from the burns.””

        Good one.

        In my universe, they simply evaporated and no one cared enough to notice they were gone.

    2. What do you have against Missouri’s bridges?

      1. Besides shootin’ my pa? Nothin.

  35. Here’s the answer for Mr. O’Reilly

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

  36. With regards to O’Reilly and his comments, I defer to a great Jedi.

    Who is more foolish, the fool, or the one who follows the fool.

  37. Libertarians like O’Reilly who espouse claims such as “tide goes in, tide goes out” means that his religion is therefore true shows that the entire Libertarian party is irrational and wrong on every issue.

    1. One bad apple spoils the bunch, huh? Now that’s rational.

    2. 1 out of 10. Terrible execution. You’re mailing it in.

  38. “”Libertarians like O’Reilly “”

    That’s just funny.

  39. 291 comments and I still don’t know how efin magnets work and neither do you guys.

    1. 11.2 MAGNETIC FIELDS

      In the region surrounding a permanent magnet there exists a magnetic field, similar to electric flux lines. Magnetic flux lines, however, do not have origins or terminating points like electric flux lines but exist in continuous loops, as shown in Fig 11.1. The symbol for magnetic flux is the Greek letter phi.

      The magnetic flux lines radiate from the nort pole to the south pole, returning to the north pole through the magnetic bar. Note the equal spacing between the flux lines within the core and the symmetric distribution outside the magnetic material. These are additional properties of magnetic flux lines in homogeneous materials (thatis, materials having uniform structure or composition throughout). It is also important to realize that the continuous magnetic flux line will strive to occupy as small an area as possible. This will result in magnetic flux lines of minimum length between the like poles, as shown in Fig. 11.2. the strength of a magnetic field in a particular region is directly related to the density of flux lines in that region.In Fig. 11.1, for example, the magnetic field strength at a is twice that of b since there are twice as many magnetic flux lines associated with the perpendicular plane at a than b. Recall from childhood experiments how the strength of permanent magnets was always stronger at the poles.

      If unlike poles of twopermanent magnets are brought together, the magnets will attract, and the flux distribution will be as shown in Fig. 11.2. If like poles are brought together, the magnets will repel, and the flux distribution will be as shown in Fig 11.3.

      Introductory Circuit Analysis, Charles Boylestad (1990)

      1. *correction*

        Charles [Robert L.] Boylestad

      2. Thanks, Mr. Whipple that is a good description of the workings. I wanted to know why they work the science behind it.

        1. Why? Because we require them to serve some useful purpose.

  40. Really? No mention of Chairface Chippendale?

  41. I think O’Reilly was trying (and failing I hasten to add) to make a point about the regularity of scientific laws as being something that you can’t explain without recourse to metaphysics (which, by definition, goes *beyond* physics). If science, by definition, can’t explain certain things, then there is room for metaphysical speculation, of which religion is a type. Hence, religion isn’t an inherently futile thing.

    But he was probably just butchering an argument he heard someone else make at some time or another.

  42. Lor|1.6.11 @ 8:39PM|#
    “If science, by definition, can’t explain certain things, then there is room for metaphysical speculation, of which religion is a type.”
    It’s called the “argument from ignorance”; you can look it up.

    “Hence, religion isn’t an inherently futile thing.”
    Yes, it is.

    1. Because….You say so? When the science cant prove what you believe that, makes what others believe just not right. Because….You say so. Too much for me I guess.

      1. But surely every explanation for the things that we don’t (yet) know is not equally trustworthy?

        If I claimed the four fundamental physical forces were all produced by powerful emanations from Steve Smith’s mighty rape rod, why should I expect to be taken seriously?

        And why is any other religious claim more respectable than my Steve Smith theory?

  43. It makes me squeal inside with delight to see a KYM link in a Reason article.

  44. By definition you cannot detect an alternate universe. If you can, it’s part of this universe.

    You fuckers don’t watch ‘Fringe’ huh?

  45. >juicy couture infuses her own spirit and personality to show fashion sensibilities, modern beauty and elegance. Besides, juicy couture handbags are full of cute elements. As the leader of fashion, Juicy couture are popular among modern trending ladies. juicy couture outlet online with low price, free shipping!

  46. The china nfl jerseys wholesalers supply the authentic nfl jerseys wholesale, cheap nfl wholesale jerseys, nfl authentic jerseys,
    all of those nfl jerseys are cheap and best quality,buy cheap nfl wholesale jerseys from china now!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.