I always hate when O’Reilly debates Dawkins. As an agnostic I have my own problems philosophically with Dawkins, but O’Reilly approaches the debate in such an inane manner. The Crusades were done out of religion. And attributing religion to making you good means there is no meaning and no freedom. Nietzsche is right once again. “One is most dishonest to one’s god; they are not allowed to sin”

Richard Dawkins vs Billo the Clown. Not a fair fight.

O’Reilly’s post-interview putdown of Dawkins, ‘forgiving’ him, has to be the most sanctimonious piece of TV I’ve seen in years. You’re a Pharisee, Bill!

yeah, let’s rely on science. Would this be the same science that still to this day can’t prevent or cure the common cold? ha, no thanks

This is parody, right? (This is too close to what a lot of right wing yahoos would post that I can’t even tell.)

I’m sorry, does praying to a probably invisible person cure the common cold, if you understood viruses and DNA replication and glycoprotein receptors and your own immune system then you could understand why. 

 How gracious that was for Bill to remind everyone how gracious he is at the end of that clip.  :rolls eyes:

We need the Mamma Grizzly to straighten this lib Dawkins up!!

Dawkins is wasting his time on this comic book tv show. O’Reilly’s a buffoon.

if bill ever won a debate, he wouldn’t caption it with his own version of the story at the end to pretend he won…he does it every time with stewart, or anyone who expresses a viewpoint articulately which he doesn’t agrees with

Richard Dawkins is a personal hero of mine. I have no idea why he decided to debase himself (for a THIRD time!) by appearing with Billo the Clown. 

Versus relying on prayer? I will take science any day.

Yes, and praying to the invisible man in the sky is a solution?

My original post was a paraody. And while I won’t pretend to understand glycoprotein receptors, I find it oddly interesting how you phrased “invisible person” in your response. Are you implying that if something is invisible then it must not exist? If so, you might want to refrain from using a cell phone or microwave since they can’t work because you can’t see the transmissions. You seem intelligent, so I simply ask you this question. When you are lying on your death bed, what if you are wrong?

I’m still trying to figure that out to. As usual when cons like O’Reilly and Hannity get there ass handed to them in facts, they try to spice it up or do what they can do to get off of the issue they just got owned on..

Jesus is the last person O’Reilly should be using to to merit his own behavior. 

The title of this article pisses me off. “Atheist author?” Are you kidding me? That’s how you describe him? Do you know who Richard Dawkins even is? Do you know how much he’s done for the public understanding of science over the past several decades? Do you know how much he’s revolutionized humanity’s understanding of evolution? Seriously, show some fucking respect for the guy.

Radiowaves can be seen just not by the human eye. I say invisible man because it conveys the childhood notion of the invisible friend. Too bad adults continue that childhood phase. And if I am wrong I will say what Bertrand Russell already said to that very question: I’ll ask God why did he make it so difficult to know him? 
And sorry I didn’t pick up on the parody. i have actually heard that type of argument too many times to count. 

Wow!

Morgan Freeman isn’t invisible

As an agnostic/atheist, I do think Dawkins was incorrect when he said that the worst mass murderers in history who happen to have been atheists had nothing to do with atheism, even though they were atheists.  One of the first moves of all those sick leaders was always to destroy religion of the masses and replace it with something else. 

Kind of hard not to tie that into the modern day atheist like Dawkins who wants to destroy the religion of the masses.

Dawkins, and his brand of modern atheists would win over many more hearts if they just ignored the myth, fantasy, or whatever you want to call religion.  Trying to attack anyone’s faith (and this rule works the same for Christians trying to convert Muslims) never works.  Lead by example not by insult.

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
[Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797]

Turns out those Founding Fathers guys had a different take on things, Bill.

Good ole Bill: The snide goes in, the snide goes out.

Hey, that magical flying Space Jew is real.

Yes, God *doesn’t* exist if you look at Him from a purely scientific point of view. If you look at God as the source of human consciousness, oneness and as something ‘above’ us mortals than it makes it easier. Some atheists can’t make their brains think that way…. not that it makes them any less of a person. I never understood: Science happens irreverent of human behavior and on its’ own course of action, yet I don’t understand why humans apply science to explain the ‘supernatural’ or ‘spiritual’ side of life. We don’t dictate science, why should it dictate us? Is it really that bad to have mysticism in our short lives? 

Why is prayer viewed as just ‘talking to the man in the sky’ ? Can you really not wrap your head around the fact that venting your problems to someone higher than you can help you cope – even if He doesn’t exist? Your perception of life coincides with your mindset. I can tell by your mocking and holier than thou attitude is going to make my comment go WAY over your head … but I await your response. 

As a non-traditional Christian I agree with you. Atheists can and are good people and I welcome religious / spiritual debate because that’s what life is all about. However, today’s mainstream Atheist movement is just over-zealous and comes off as hateful. I always tell my Atheist friends that, in today’s world, Atheism is becoming it’s own religion – exactly what Atheists despise. 

hey, no problem about the parody. I can tell you are a nice guy and extremely smart. I guess my only point I have left to try to make to you is that once Bertrand Russell asks God why he made it so difficult to know him, it’ll be too late. The Bible says it requires Faith. As smart as you are can you possibly look up at the heavens and see the planets and stars and the complexities of all living creatures and explain it all from a big bang theory? The Bible also says that we can’t comprehend all worldly things and do not contain the capacity to understand all heavenly things.  Last point, If I’m wrong we both have the same afterlife, nothing. If you are wrong, we don’t.

I agree 100%. There are some very cool atheists/agnostics out there. usually they are the ones leading the a defense of religion. S.E. Cupp comes to mind, although she is probably not popular in these parts as she is Right-of-Center.  Heck, look to the less religious Founding Fathers.  Those people handled faith pretty well.

I look at it like this, it took a few religious people in power finally becoming open-minded (old school liberal) enough to allow people to practice non-religion. It would be silly and hypocritical for the non-religious to persecute the faithful due to a non-shared belief.

I know there are some Social Cons who want to run everyone’s life- I just think there are “Atheist Social Cons” that want to try to tell people how dumb or silly or whatever because of their faith.  Bill Mahr is a great example of this (and he is friends with S.E. Cupp, go figure).

Why do rabid ideologists argue with each other? Exhausting.

Bill was especially Christian when he sexually harassed one of his producers.

This is why Libertarianism is the way to go…No one really cares that much about this debate.  It doesn’t solve any problems and proves very little.

Both parties seem to be too concerned about this issue…
The far left hates it too much
The far right likes it too much
But Libertarians just don’t give a shit.

And that’s exactly why I don’t understand why some Atheists can be so over-zealous. Yes, I do understand that Atheists can have reasonable gripes with religion because many problems have arose because of it in the past, but on an individual basis religion can help many people in their private lives. EX: I wake up, go to school, go to work, be nice to people, help out, obey the law, etc. and yes, I also happen to believe in God. Atheists these days want to make me realize how *stupid* I am because there possibly be a God and aren’t satisfied til I admit they’re right. My belief in God does not affect the Atheist sitting next to me’s life, yet today’s atheist movement desperately want to win the ideological battle even though it stirs up hate, partisanship, and divide. 

I happen to be a conservative (odd for my age because I’m only 20), and I can’t stand some of the diehard social conservatives. I don’t want people to use religion to tell me how stupid I am just as much as I don’t want people using atheism to tell me how stupid I am. I am religious but ALL of my political views have came to be because I think A LOT and try and do my own research and make myself smarter. I wish more people did their own research instead of only relying on their religion or political party talking points. 

Technically you are right – this issue doesn’t solve any problems but it is good to have religious debate on TV every once in awhile. What kind of humans would we be if we *didn’t* debate / question each other about our existence? 

I suppose your correct…

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Thanks for the compliment even though I don’t ascribe to the notion of being highly intelligent. Nevertheless, I prefer to live my life creating meaning, and figuring out what I can. God cannot be fathomed. We can try to determine what is though. Your mention of the heavens and the awe remind me of Kant, who I feel was a closet atheist, and it just further perpetuates my need to figure it all out.I know I can’t but I rather live my life trying to then to just assume something I will probably never know the answer to. 

Dawkins point is correct: these murdering dictators were not DRIVEN by their lack of belief in an almighty. That wasn’t what motivated their bloody campaigns. By contrast, you can point to countless murderers throughout history — from the crusaders to the 9/11 hijackers — who WERE explicitly motivated by their beliefs to kill.

I get your point. Although I don’t believe in a higher power it does help others and more power to them.

What the heck is going on with this page? This is the most civil discussion I’ve ever seen on mediaite?

Come on people, this isn’t how it works!

And don’t get me wrong – I respect your right to be an atheist if you so choose. Was just trying to spark some debate.

Hello LIlly,

Question:  In your legal studies have you ever come across or discussed, Professor Wechsler’s theory on “neutral principles?”  Effectively that law requires a neutral foundation, whereby neutrally principled law may be applied to other contexts.  Without such neutrality, the law is merely caprice with sanction?

I stretched the philosophy to ask what is the difference between ethics and morals, and which would originate better law?  I suggest that “ethics” are born of the mind and intellect, while “morals,” emerge from the heart and conscience.

Respectfully. Any Thoughts?

Purveyor of Rhetoric

I suggest the reasoning contained in the legal precursors to Roe v. Wade: Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, are all solid decisions as they support a “right of privacy” within the Constitutional text.  

If you disagree with me, wait until the day arrives when “your Ox is gored,” so to speak?  When your “privacy” is trampled, you may feel differently, at that point? (Respectfully, take a close look at the 4th amendment)With that being said. the social-religious issues that always seem to divert an election, tend to come in conflict with the above mentioned Supreme Court cases, and others.  Ergo, perhaps American’s should consider deferring to the States a bit more often, as that was the original plan.  Especially in cases and law that come in very obvious moral conflict with religious teachings.  Such as Roe v. Wade, etc.Effectively, there still is a degree of homogeneity within the “several States.”  We should let that “homogeneity” run its course by allowing the States to make those provincial, parochial, regional decisions?

Purveyor

Which is interesting. Since some of these antitheist activists use the guilt by association fallacy saying that anyone who identifies with a religion that has people in it that did bad, then they are all connected and responsible. All when they identify as marxist antitheists. Does this really evade them entirely?

 I see your point but don’t understand it. When you say atheist want to win this ideological battle in what sense do you mean this? Do you feel that they are pushing their lack of beliefs in your face? Or do you wish them not to not to speak of this lack of belief at all? However you feel atheist are pushing their ideology in your face it must comparatively be minor compared to what they have pushed in their face? How are they being over-zealous with the occasional book or bill board? Compared to churches, mosques, temples and the like spread out all over the country. With crosses, constant religious beliefs spewed by celebrities,politicians,pundits,and quasi religious figures all over the world and this country. I don’t see how you can condemn the atheist yet not condemn the religious who are much more fanatical and pushy with their beliefs.

Yes that is annoying. The man is a brilliant scientist among many other things.

I am reminded by your Jeffersonian quote, of the preamble to The Declaration of Independence.  The Founders were men of their time, and, men of their time, were religious, to varying degrees.  However, it is apparent by the Constitution and Bill of Rights that the Founders were impelled to separate Church and State by leaving the Legislative process to reason. rather than religious caprice.

Consider the Founders and the New Nation had just endured a war with a Monarchy, from a Continent that had been oppressed by overt religiosity for some 1500 years.  The Founders knew full well what to avoid in the creation of the new Constitution.  However, what to include, was another dilemma?

Purveyor

 Depends on what you do with that mysticism. I would say that Osama Bin Laden did not benefit from having god in his life.

Rubbish. You are just parroting them. Such disconcern for history that contradicts one’s agenda is astounding. Throughout history people fought for land, power, and wealth. To say a single thing is to blame for complex periods of time with possibly hundreds of contributing factors, is incredibly narrow minded, and absurd. Periods of imperialism and power hungry dictatorship is solely because of religion? What?
 
Leaders of totalitarian atheistic regimes enforced State Atheism. Where as if people didn’t conform, than you would be rounded up and slaughtered. They killed people who identified with a religion, and oppressed religious freedom. Though like with your logic, it would be absurd to say such a preference for atheism is to blame for the entirety. Like  we have seen throughout history, people are oppressed from having beliefs that differentiate with those in power. Since the right to assemble and disagree serves as threat. Which is exactly why you couldn’t disagree with those in power during the crusades, as well as under communistic regimes that restricted differing thought.

Ummm, huh. I was going to post something, but I suspect from your post that you are far too ignorant to bother with. It isn’t even logical. Why would Dawkins go on O’Reilly, now that’s  a mystery. A trained philosopher with an impressive resume debating a blowhard who’s intellectual training was that he was a former math teacher, elementary math, I believe.  This is just silly.  God, Dawkins should fire his publicist for putting him through an exercise as silly as this. This is not how debates work. This was not a debate. Silly, silly, silly. 

Dawkins aside, the basic Billo statement is “amusing”.
The racial segregation was the tradition-based reality too. I wonder how Billo would approach that kind of argument. Umm, actually I shudder while guessing…

dawkins runs circles around this guy

Although I’m not active with any church, I am not an atheist.  So I too can be considered a “Christian, of a varying degree”.  Yet, this is irrelevant and holds no sway in my philosophy of government.  And it appears that it didn’t sway Thomas Jefferson, either.  My comment would be hard to refute…

Libertarianism believes that individual rights can ONLY be limited in situations where it infringes upon another’s rights and that this is the governments only ability to curb freedom.  Jefferson’s quote certainly seems to re-soundly concur with this.

Although the preamble contains theological wording.  They are used as metaphors to describe the universality of freedom (remember, they “were men of their time”) and not an endorsement of any particular religion.

Great point! So which of the countless ideologies and gods should i sign up with?

LOL, I know several people who say that this web site is too rowdy.  We have developed quite a reputation.  I like it that way.

Generally because Dawkins is such a douchbag that the South Park guys depicted him having sex with a man who had become a woman through a sex change operation while still looking like a man.

He’s still a douchebag, no matter what you say.

Seeing atheism as religion is something even Seth MacFarlane, an atheist, believes now.

Some of them, unfortunately for people like Dawkins, cite Darwin.  Hitler took “survival of the fittest” to murderous lengths to justify his beliefs.

I love this argument.  It shows the utter ignorance of liberals.  If this was such a sticking point, it would be mentioned a lot more often.  That’s true.  But the states have the authority to set up state religions if they want to.

If the child in the womb is considered alive, the privacy argument flies out of the window.  Privacy doesn’t allow you to legally kill someone.  By the way, Roe lied to get to the Supreme Court by claiming rape, which she later admitted was false.  She’s now a huge pro-life activist.

 Thanks. I enjoy reading your posts. You seem like an intelligent young man. You give reasonable responses to posts. A lot of this site is just rhetoric and name calling, both of which I’m guilty at sometimes. 

Good for Falafel-Billy that he can be forgiven. God knows he´s a true sinner. And such a pathetic loser who desperately screams guests down, clings to lies and like a coward declares himself the winner when his opponents aren´t around.  Most powerful man, huh.

“So anyway I’d be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda’ kissing your neck from behind…and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I’d just put it on your
p***y but you’d have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business…”

I really do appreciate  Oreillys  willingness to debate people with opposing views..It’s just that  he’s really not good at it.. Even with editing and time to prepare for the discussion he consistently gets beat..   

Magical but unguided “Creation” explained by science. I have not read this yet, but I don’t need to, to know that it will be brilliantly written. Early reviews concur.

Strategically, it looks to be a brilliant “counter” to the Intelligent Design is “science” idiocy. Rick Perry and his Board of Education are probably scrambling to figure out a way to keep this soon-to-be bestseller out of Texas schools.

I hate to help religionists like O’Reilly add more arrows to their quiver of religious hypocrisy.. but the current Syrian regime’s conduct adds credence to their premise that atheistic regimes being more apt to commit heinous atrocities

Then again, Israel is a state based on a religion and their conduct is just as criminal and heinous

More accurately, not even a fight. This looks closer to that famous skit done by the old Monty Python’s Flying Circus crew, where a customer pays money to have an argument and instead the other man just gain-says him. O’Reilly never fights, nor even argues – instead, he sets up a loaded question or point then interrupts the answer before it gets out, he steps on his guests’ lines – he did it repeatedly to Obama, not just as a candidate but as president – he insults his guests’, he’s dismissive of them, and he takes cheap shots at them, and meanwhile demands that they treat his rude bullying as ‘questioning’ and constituting part of ‘civil discourse’.

All of that is classic bully behavior. 

We know from psychologists that bullies act the way they do out of primal fear. O’Reilly makes an extravagant living because he’s the biggest and loudest bullfrog in a small pond. The viewer numbers for his show are consistently much higher than any other show that might be called a competitor in news commentary not despite but because bullies convey fear, he’s an extremely reliable bully, and his viewers watch in hopes that he bullies guests that manifest their fears. 

But even then, despite being a quite largest and particularly aggressive TV bully, his reputation for success is based largely on how small the pond is. O’Reilly’s viewer ratings reflect numbers in the 2 to 3 million range – in a country of over 300 millions. So, those ratings, and his reputation for being able to attract them, both depend on his finding and attracting and maintaining less than one American in one hundred. It should not surprise anyone that one American in one hundred is a chronically fearful person who seeks the illusion of comfort in watching a bully attack that which he or she fears. Indeed, I would have thought the number to be far higher.

From this interview in this clip, what we learn about this new book by Dawkins is almost nothing. We learn that it’s aimed at a younger demographic than earlier books by Dawkins, but not even what that demographic is, whether Sesame Street or pre-teen or middle school or teen or young adult. We do not even learn whether the focus is biology, which is Dawkins’ expertis, or religion, which is Dawkins’ other main subject. The fact that a child of 6 could have brought out the basics of his book in one questions – tell  us about your new book and why your wrote it – proves that O’Reilly is a complete failure as an interviewer. 

Atheists are free to deny the existence of God, but I find the trend of writing religion out of the laws of this country disturbing and against the spirit of freedom. From it’s very inception the people that composed the fabric of America were men of strong religious convictions, specifically Christian convictions. That is, a belief in God and the Bible shaped the foundations of America. It was through that faith that we became the greatest nation on Earth. 
What do atheists have besides a list of the countless dead under brutal atheistic and communist regimes and a spiritual emptiness? They are negative and angry by nature. There is no source of absolute morality God says the universe is so much more than just chemical reactions and physical laws, and it’s only through him we can be forgiven of our sins.

Isn’t that what they do to pretty much every public figure? Look what they do to Jesus, and the Devil, and God – they portray God as a cross-dressing cow with the runs, the Devil as an over-muscled homosexual and Jesus as a completely ineffectual d.j. for shut-ins, always playing elevator music and throwing out platitudes and aphorisms so lame they make 10 minutes with Oprah feel like a course in advanced philosophy. Compared to what they do to most public figures, a guy having sex with a transgendered person after botched sex assignment is a compliment. 

And who then is Cartman? The acme of what it means to be a school-yard bully; and, if anyone on that show, the star. Just. Like. O’Reilly.

Unfortunately, WILLIE, you missed the point.  Whenever Roe is used as an example, people put blinders on.  So it goes.  I cited 2 other cases and then entered the body of my argument, which was about STATES RIGHTS!

I can’t simply wave a wand a make things whole again, I needed a REASONED argument to arrive at a conclusion, that you would probably agree with?  But, I guess we’ll just have to wait until “your Ox is gored?”

Respectfully, Purveyor

Framed like a true moran. Science explains that the common cold cannot be cured by science, and that there are very good evolutionary reasons for that: it’s part of Nature’s campaign to keep the human population down. The fact that the Common Cold campaign has been no more effective than the bubonic plague and a host of other nasty diseases is why we have over-population, and why Nature is now in the course of a very large campaign called Global Warming, to get rid of us once and for all. We as a species have proven to be like introducing rabbits or camels or cane toads to Australia, or zebra mussels to the Great Lakes – no natural enemies to keep down the population, top of the food chain devouring everything else. Ha Ha — good-bye Dennis.

You clearly fail to understand either religion or science. Did you know there’s a lot of science that explains where religion comes from, and Dawkins is one of the best on the planet in that field? You should go to a library or a bookstore or onto Amazon and get his The God Delusion.

Also, maybe you should get a dictionary: “irreverent of human behavior” does not mean what you think it means. Maybe you meant “irrelevant”, but even then, your chosen word should have been “regardless”.

The reason humans resort to science to explain religion is because many humans are curious to know how things really work. The reason the U.S. is in such truly awful shape right now is that there are way more American humans who are not like that at all, but more like you, not curious about anything. The U.S. is tied with Turkey at around 47th as the most religiotic, anti-evolution, anti-science country. Fortunately for humans in general, this just means the U.S. will fail to keep up, like Spain failed to keep up when it was overwhelmed by religiosity, like the Ottoman Empire did, like the Roman Empire did when out of short-term desperation it adopted religiosity. The U.S. currently is at about #19 even just in technology, with all of Scandinavia, China, South Korea, even Canada — CANADA — so far ahead it’s probably impossible for the U.S. to ever catch up.

O’Reilly then brought up the idea that the worst regimes in history were “atheistic,” pointing to dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. – Alex Alvarez

Classic “red herring” argument by O’Reilly. The fact that the photos of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, were “prepped”, indicates that Mr. O’Reilly knew, ahead of time, that Dawkins would be handing him his ass intellectually.

Later on in the discussion, however, O’Reilly gleefully shouted “A-ha!” when Dawkins referred to, in this instance, Christianity as a myth on par with Aztec or Egyptian mythology and belief. O’Reilly responded by calling Judeo-Christian belief not a myth but a reality “on which our country is based” — an idea that Dawkins seemed to find entirely absurd.
- Alex Alvarez

Dawkins does, indeed seem to find O’Reilly’s statement absurd. But, there are actually two separate assertions being bing made in that single statement. The first is that “Judeo-Christian belief not a myth but a reality”. The second, is that  this Judeo-Christan ‘non-myth’ (according to O’Reilly) was the primary foundational source that our primary Founding Fathers “based” the United States on.

Let’s kill two birds with one stone. It is undeniable that Thomas Paine is considered the “Father of the American Revolution. Just ask the ultra conservative Glenn Beck, author of “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: the Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, inspired by Thomas Paine”. Beck’s book is idiotic historical revisionism, but it does correctly paint Paine as the critical, primary “catalyst” in America’s push for “Independence”.

Here’s what the brilliant Thomas Paine, mentor of Thomas Jefferson, had to say about the Judeo-Christian religion, and whether it was based on reality, or mythology…

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian church sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand: the statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints; the Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything; the church became as crowded with one, as the Pantheon had been with the other, and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud. – Thomas Paine

See Mr. O’Reilly, the brilliant Father of the American Revolution disagreed, vociferously, with your conservative position.

And, here’s another excerpt (my favorite) from Paine’s The Age of Reason that’s fun to ponder when considering the reality vs myth question…

It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were written by the persons whose names they bear; the best surviving evidence we now have respecting that affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the times this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say, it is not true. It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have told you by producing the people who say it is false. – Thomas Paine

The “Jews” were right there watching it all take place (this according to the “Christian Mythologists”) and they, the Jews, say that Jesus’ “Divinity”, with a capital “D” was a myth.

Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t get the backing that he thinks that he gets from the primary founders. Jefferson’s authoring of the Declaration of Independence deals an even bigger blow to O’Reilly’s ‘America was based on Judeo-Christian belief’ assertions. Jefferson’s “Nature’s God” and “The Laws of Nature” prove that Mr. O’Reilly is historically challenged.

The reason the Bible says it requires faith is because, if you stopped even one moment to think about it, it doesn’t work. Reading the Bible should be like reading an artifact of human development – would you believe some of the crap we took on faith? But if you do give in completely and go with faith, it works like children’s cartoons. Of course, we hope children grow out of those.

You know who didn’t accept the Big Bang theory? Einstein, at first – took him years to accept it. The first person to come up it was a Catholic priest from Belgium named George Lemaitre, and Einstein mocked him for it. The person who proved Lemaitre was not a clown was an American lawyer, Edwin Hubble, who liked to look at the stars and galaxies and constellations through telescopes. Once Einstein read about what Hubble saw, Einstein gave in and agreed Lemaitre was probably right. Even into the 1950s, Very Serious Big Time scientists mocked the idea: indeed, British scientist Fred Hoyle came up with the name Big Bang in order to mock the idea, because he was with the old Einstein theory called Steady State.

But with the persistence of the Hubble Group, we found out about the Hubble Constant, and the Cosmic Constant, which both showed the universe expanded. Then, in 1964, an American born astronomer named Woodrow Wilson (not the same guy) and a German-born astronomer, discovered Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and proved the existence of Dark Matter. Then in 1998 a team of American physicists in California and another in Australia discovered the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. They proved the existence of of Dark Energy. And they just received the Nobel prize in Physics for doing that two days ago.

Today most physicists accept the Big Bang theory as the Most Likely cause of the birth of the universe – which means that it had a mommy, so really is just one universe among a sequence or a herd or an endless cycle. Some of them think more likely it came from two membrane universes rubbing up against each other and creating a heat bubble. Others think it may have come from about as a by-product of a Black Hole. We will never actually know because while we can see the entire history of the post Big Bang era still written in the stars and galaxies and constellations, the Big Bang, or Big Bubble, or that Black Hole or whatever it was started Time and we cannot look back before Time.

There is some ‘good news’ here for you, though: there IS an afterlife – just not what you think. When you die, the atoms and subatomic particles that make up you live on and stay in this universe as other stuff – all sorts of stuff. Tiny little parts of you will become part of every human, every animal, every fish, every slime mold, every plant on this planet. Just as you now have in you some tiny bits of Archimedes and Caesar and Ghengis Kahn and Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr, as well as RuPaul, everyone who ever lived, everyone who ever WILL live, until this universe is done, will contain some little bits of you.

Quote: “My comment would be hard to refute?”  

A bit pugnacious of you, after all, there is a large body of law that does just that? (refute) In fact, I believe I could have a go at the subject and, perhaps sway an audience or jury?Furthermore, I sense a certain degree of defensiveness in your response, when such is unneeded.  I was pleased by your first comment as I have written extensively on the subject.  Have you ever of a Professor H. Wechsler, and his theory of “neutral principles?”  (Your cup-o-tea, I believe)The “Preamble” was, perhaps, a way to “tip toe” into government based on reason, rather than “religious caprice?” Even the citizens of the New Nation had to be brought along carefully into the new “American Experiment.”Lastly, I suggest, almost immediately after Constitutional ratification, “religiosity” along with “political expediency” (Alien and Sedition Acts) reared their ugly heads and haven’t stopped since?  Ouch!Respectfully,  Purveyor of Rhetoric

You know, there COULD be something to that Perry Prayer festival thing, because right after he led tens of thousands of fellow believers in praying for rain, the state of Texas REALLY caught fire in a big way. So, if there is a God, that would mean he thinks Rick Perry is an object of fun who he can mock. Sort of like the way O’Reilly acts, except way funnier.

It’s called zen meditation. And it kind of works, at least for some people. Won’t cure cancer or get you a job, but for a lot of folks it can make them feel better about things and themselves, calm them down. You can also make or buy a hand-puppet, or get a dog; both of them work pretty much the same way and as well. I’m not kidding: it’s …… SCIENCE.

Actually, you can find out the reason from Dawkins himself. He says on his website and on youtubes that he’s tired of doing lectures for the choir, and he feels the call of the missionary to go off and talk to the ignorant and ill-informed – which certainly includes O’Reilly. Also, he’s promoting his latest book and Billo has a big audience. Dawkins isn’t trying to promote the book to get richer – he’s already got more money than he can ever spend in the years left to him to live – but instead is trying to get some traction for his ideas out of the truly persistently ignorant and ill-informed. So, he goes to middle-schools in Tennessee, and high schools in West Virginia, and colleges in Texas, and post-graduate professional programs in South Carolina. Going on to Billo’s show is part of this. He really doesn’t care if people buy his book or not, just so long as they do some open-minded reading and start to think for themselves. And let’s face, with Billo having an audience nightly of several million, at least a few are going to buy one of his books, even if second hand, or borrow one. Then maybe one of their kids will pick it up and read it before they’re doomed to a life of ignorance and misinformation. Dawkins would see that as a Win. So, even though you can’t see that from this clip, Dawkins got the W he was looking for just by going on.

The one I most enjoy is his lecture on the race among the four main giants of biology in the early 1800s that led to Darwin publishing his Origin of Species. It’s all on youtube, and it’s thrilling and smart and fun. His vocabulary, the way he works with words, his ability to work out complicated human dramas and fit them into the story of life, his respect for his audiences, those are the reasons he’s so successful and valuable.

Bill is not historically challenged, he is simply appealing to his people, and how they perceive our history. They want to hear Bill defend the notion that America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country, because that is what they believe. Bill will say anything his people want to hear.

I can’t quite reconcile this pos with others of yours, I have been responding too?  Perhaps I giving you more credit than deserved?

Purveyor

Well, not “all. Hitler didn’t do anything of the sort. Rather, he invoked Catholicism and made arrangements with the Pope (Hitler was far from universally popular in Germany – Lutherans for example despised his Catholicism.). Also, by definition the European Crusades over several hundred years into the near and middle east had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with choosing up sides in an ongoing religious war. The Reformation led to the 80 years or so of atrocities and genocide of the 80 Years War, and that too was about taking up sides. And there are many many more examples – so you lose completely on that “all” point.

I would think most people who somehow link atheism and mass genocides and atrocities in their minds are thinking of the post-Enlightenment Age, really the Industrial Age examples of Russia becoming the Soviet Union and Mao moving China towards its peculiar brand of ant-hill communism. In the first example, the attacks on the various Catholic and Protestant derived Russian churches were really motivated by the need to overcome the domination over much of the population exercised by a contract of many many years standing among the Russian aristocracy, the boyars who enforced it, and the main Russian churches. In order to break that stranglehold, the post Revolution types under Lenin and later Stalin were methodical in going first after the aristocracy and killing all of them, which after all was only a few hundred, then killing off the boyars, who were more or less like the Sunni military bosses under Saddam Husseein, which would be maybe a few thousands, then killing off the priests, some more thousands. The thing is, it’s very hard to draw lines when it comes to purity purges and cutting out gangrene, so the Soviet, particularly under Stalin, kept widening and escalating the killing to exert and maintain power. After a while, it wasn’t religion they were after, it was dissent, and the Church used the fact that they were targeted very earlier on in the purges for P.R. value. I’d be interested in knowing what alternatives you think Lenin and Stalin had to this awful policy, given the evidence that, but for doing those things, they would have lost to Hitler and the Nazis and many more Russians would have been killed and have starved to death. 

Mao faced a similar problem in China, but worse on a number of fronts because China then was like the U.S. now, a wholly-owned subsidiary, but where in the US now its of corporations, in China then it was of — well, corporations: mostly British corporations, but also some American ones. China had a huge drug addiction problem – sound familiar? – except it was opium rather than crack and meth, the western powers, particularly England, were the pushers, stealing the Chinese blind and in a stupor for centuries. The religion aspect was a bit different, because, not surprisingly with a place that big with so many people, there were lots of religions, a huge variety, a vast diversity. But among the lessons Mao took from history, rightly or wrongly, was the lesson of England, which only became a power once it had a state religions and state language, in a project that started with Henry VIII and all those women, and ended with the return to England of the exiled Charles II who, tho Catholic, agreed to accept that Anglican would be the state religion. Mao was too much of a realist to be a believer, could not choose, did not believe in picking among religions, and had not enough or other resources to go through the hugely expensive time consuming process of imposing a state religion while Securing the (Sino) Borders – against mostly the U.S. and its allies, Britain, Japan by that time, South Korea and Taiwan. So, he went with a half-a-policy: kill off ALL religions, and make the STATE a cult. 

Just like in Russia. Atheism wasn’t a policy goal for either Soviet Russia or Communist China – it was at most an outcome, and not even that. The GOAL, in each case, was statism.

So, are you saying that you think O’Reilly is totally aware that the primary Founding Fathers wanted to create a secular nation, and that he is simply pandering to his audience? I suppose that that is possible, but, given that he is also pretty clueless when it comes to the ”Intelligent Design is science” debate, I still lean towards he’s ”historically challenged”. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the roots of his revisionism.

Well, you’re wrong to tell them that because it’s ill-informed and ignorant and insensitive. Atheism is BY DEFINITION not a religion: it is the DENIAL of a signal tenet of religion per se, which is deism, or belief in one more all seeing all powerful superbeings. It is not even accurate to call atheism a belief system, because no belief is involved in it at all. Rather, atheism is a denial of religious faith as a belief system, and with it all other belief systems. 

Some say science IS a belief system, but they are wrong: Science replaces a belief system. Science is systematic skepticism, not faith or belief, and the things that are accepted under science are accepted with big caveats and conditions, amounting to, Okay, sounds good, I’m going with that unless and until it’s proven wrong and some better understanding comes along. 

You don’t have to be atheist to practice science, though it helps. You DO have to entertain doubt, which is the opposite of faith. Some scientists who call themselves Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or whatever for whatever reason do so mostly for social reasons, like Darwin did to keep his wife from leaving him, or because they have more important things on their plates than working through philosophical crap.

Last point: we are pretty much at the end of the long dominance of the U.S. in the Nobel science prizes, because religiots captured conservatives and radical conservative captured the Republican party and now we have institutionalized checks and balance government with Stupidity and Willful Ignorance being full constitutional parters, so it’s worthwhile to take a look at the American winners before the right succeeds in trashing the Nobels. In particular: look at All. Those. Atheists. As a general statement, with some exceptions, the smartest ever Americans have been atheists. That’s about to change, because America is not longer smart.

Cupp is a plant, like Alan Colmes was the FNC house liberal.

O’Reilly erred when he said ”our country” while speaking to Dawkins.  Dawkins is a citizen of England, not the United States.  Dawkins is a citizen of a theocratic monarchy, where the monarch’s religion is best, and everyone else’s is less.  Dawkins supplants atheism for Anglicanism, and carries the paradigm foward.  His way is best, and everyone else’s is less.  Dawkins must remember that in America, we’re all free and equal.  One person’s Flying Spaghetti Monster is no better than another person’s Fish ‘N Chips Fairy.

Maher is an entertainer, and his show is FREAKIN SHOW, NOT HIS REAL LIFE. Cupp is a “show” friend, someone who he gets on to his show to make his show go. 

Now, it may be  that Maher does not actually have real friends, but only “show” friends (just like Billo), so in that sense you are right about the ‘friend’ part, but wrong about Maher: Maher is indistinguishable from his act – Bill Maher IS Show Bill Maher. It’s a schtick, a recurring bit, and he’s pretty much Opposite Billo, or O’Reilly is Bizarro World Super Billo to Maher’s auxiliary member in the old DC Comics Justice League of America, Mocking Schtick Man.

Then why put any labels on yourself at all? R U so insecure?

Bull shit. Seth uses his show to make money and have fun. If he said this, which I doubt, then he said it to amuse, as Show Seth. Why do people have so much trouble accepting that entertainers are ACTING? Do you really think once Seth leaves the studio he is THAT Seth you see on TV? Think about it this way: you have a life, or think so – if you took that life onto TV, what would it look like to the rest of us? Yup: Ozzie, and I don’t mean Ozzie & Harriet. You know perfectly well what you would TRY to do: to self-censor, so we don’t see how you really eat your boogers and type with one hand for a reason (I don’t mean that’s what YOU do, I mean that for sure you do something or some things a lot of people would think are odd or disgusting – because everyone does. I mean, this is why nature invented falling in love, to overcome the yuck factor.

Yeah, that was wrong and sad, but it’s really time you stopped getting fooled by that. It’s old trick, after all. Do you still believe Santa is real, or the Tooth Fairy, or in the Stork bringing babies?

Anyway, it doesn’t take much actually reading and thinking to understand that the Nazi movement’s use of Darwin was incorrect and pure b.s. propaganda. Darwin’s great idea was evolution by natural sexual selection over generations, not WITHIN  generations, not due to any ‘triumphs of the will, or even out of any illusion of progress. Darwin came up with the correct mechanism to explain diversity. He wasn’t prescribing anything.  

Dennis, you are an idiot… Please keep your head in the sand.

No they didn’t. You don’t cite a single example, because you can’t – there aren’t any that illustrate your point. Moroever, you’re point is to thick and dense to make coherent sense out of, to the point where we could ever hope to do it ourselves. 

I do like your avattar name, though: self-mocking irony. Anything to attract the chicks.

i have no idea what you are on about, unless its to get Lilly close enough to pounce. This really isn’t the place to put on these sorts of Bird of Paradise OTT displays. Give us all a cite, a blog name, a website, a wiki link, anything, and if we’re interested we go check out if you’re full of crap and just trying to pounce on poor Lilly or have a point. I’m cheering for you pal, hoping your name isn’t just an anagram for pervy wanker. It’s up to you to impress us all or prove out our suspicions – cuz believe me, pal, right now it’s looking pretty, pretty bad for you.

Oh for crying out loud. You really think those guys would have voted for Ron Paul if he was alive then or they were here now? Libertarianism is like the measles: it’s something everyone should get, because there’s a shot for it and if you get it you won’t get it again and then won’t get horrible pock marks or die of it, so it’s important to get it and then get past it. 

  Your last sentence gave me pause and I think I will write it down.  Very well stated.  

You’ve stated that well.  

Man, you really ought to take a writing course or something, maybe an extension course in logic and thought, because at this stage, you’re headed towards the same sad state as Palin, Perry & Bachmann without the notoriety and money. It’s incoherent, purv; look it up – IN. CO. HER. ENT. What you do is bafflegab, word salad, prose by fridge magnets.

Also, you have that same stupid awe of Teh Founders as the Tea Party idiots. The REASON the Founders were religious, in some sense, was because they did their work decades before James Maxwell discovered the electromagnetic force, before Michael Faraday came up with a practical connector, before Ludwig Boltzmann came up gas dynamics, before Hendrik Lorenz came up with hundreds of mathematical representations of natures laws, before Einstein and his relativities, Planck and his constant, Heisenberg and his Uncertainty, Shrodinger and his cat, Fermi and his neutrons, Bohr and quantum mechanics, Wheeler and black holes, Feynman and his diagrams, Gell-Mann and his quarks, Wilson and his cosmic microwave background radiation and Dark Matter, Weinberg & Glashow and their electroweak force, Gross & Wilzcek and their strong force with asymptotic action, and Perlmutter & Reiss – honored with a Nobel JUST THIS WEEK for the accelerating expanding universe and Dark Energy, and thousands of their like – that is BECAUSE TEH FOUNDSRS IN THOSE DAYS DID NOT KNOW ANY DIFFERENT AND HAD NO BETTER IDEA.

Now we do have a better idea. Many better ideas. And much better. Science at work.

“As an agnostic”

Apparently you’re not supposed to use that term alone. In other words, you’re either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Dawkins considers himself to be an agnostic atheist (i.e. he acknowledges that he can never be 100% that no gods exist, but he finds their existence highly doubtful). To me, that’s the most rational position a person can take. No evidence for gods? No reason to believe in them until the evidence is provided.

I think, Willie, you are going to have to Go Directly to Go and Start All Over Again, because it appears your entire mind set has become infected with idiots.

So in essence you’re saying that brilliance is nurtured and blossoms when one discards that trappings of religion and this is proven by the #’s of nobel winners.  

You then went on to tie the American domination of the nobel prizes to a particular political party.   I guess your premise being that scientific brilliance can only blossom when tax payer funds are thrown at the brilliant scientist and without that he shrivels and dies.  I assume you think he goes to his grave never tapping into his brilliance – don’t know exactly what happens to him in your scheme of things. 

Take a Steve Jobs – a brilliant “scientist” who crafted his awesome visions without trappings and mega funding but possessing  a curious and brilliant mind.  

In fairness, I really don’t think Perry gives a shit about religion, except as a means to an end – something for a yell-leader to yell. If Perry had been born on a farm in an isolated district of Szechzuan province in China, and the prevailing pest was hairy-toed beetles and the prevailing establishment was statism with not local religions at all, he’d be telling lies about killing hairy-toed beetles with firecrackers while out with his dog checking on the rice paddies,  and leading million-man pledges to the teachings of Mao as a useful way to get that big dam project completed and for a bumper rice crop.

In fairness, I really don’t think Perry gives a shit about religion, except as a means to an end – something for a yell-leader to yell. If Perry had been born on a farm in an isolated district of Szechzuan province in China, and the prevailing pest was hairy-toed beetles and the prevailing establishment was statism with not local religions at all, he’d be telling lies about killing hairy-toed beetles with firecrackers while out with his dog checking on the rice paddies,  and leading million-man pledges to the teachings of Mao as a useful way to get that big dam project completed and for a bumper rice crop.

Why would you say Cupp is a plant?  Is that because she is not a democrat?  

“this lib”

Haha, this is absolutely hilarious. You’ve basically admitted that you have no fucking clue what a liberal is and you use it to smear anyone that disagrees with you. I’ve rarely heard Dawkins talk about politics.

Anti-theism ≠ atheism.

I guess I made you learn a new word today?

You’re welcome.

“Liberals”

Okay, get ready for this, I’m about to blow your mind. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a “liberal.” I know, it’s fucking amazing, isn’t it? And, get this, there are RELIGIOUS liberals! My god, incredible, no?

Why would Dawkins go on O’Reilly?  Because he has a book to sell and the brilliant Dawkins hasn’t figured out a better way to sell it yet. lol

When testifying we swear our truthfulness to God.  When purchasing anything, we use money proclaiming our Trust in God.  Sounds fairly clear to me.

“atheistic regimes”

What the hell does that even mean?

Bill, pandering to his audience?

Good one.

No you don’t hate that. Not at all. In fact, you love saying stupid ignorant wrong things. 

Syria: google it. Damascus: one of the freakin’ most important centers of Islam in the whole world. All sorts of Islam, including types that kill each other over religious wars. As well as more types of Christians than you can find in upper New York state, which is chock a block with whacky Christian sects. Only Damascus hasn’t been at this religion crap for a few hundred years, it’s arguably Monotheism R Us for all three of the desert biggies, plus Zoroaster types and Manicheans, you name, going back over ten thousand years ago when agriculture-based civilizations were just getting underway and the first Billy Graham came along and figured: Hey, this could get me off that lousy ox plow.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that; or rather, any MORE wrong than say Rome for Catholics.

The suggestion that Syria is an atheist country plumbs new depths for the benefit of future aspiring morons, which you might not be (tho it’s looking bad, pal), and rather it may just be that what confused you is the word ‘secular’. If so, then breaking news, pal: that word does not mean what you think it means: it does not mean anti-religious, or pro-atheist; it means separation of church and state. If Syria did NOT stay technically legally secular, it would have blown up in religious conflict a long time ago, because it’s got more flavors of Islam and fringe Christianity than Ben & Jerry’s has flavours of ice cream an gelato.

Bottom line: Homework – You need to read up more, or some at least, on what ‘secular’ means.

Talking about FAITH or leap thereof.

What is a greater leap of faith: That wonders like the human brain, the eye, life itself just came about, helter-skelter, randomly or that all that was designed and implemented by an entity beyond our ken and understanding?

What do you say,  Mr. Dawkings?

“Judeo-Christian belief” is not what O’Reilly said. 

He said, “The Judeo-Christian philosophy isn’t a myth.  It’s a reality.  This country was based on it.” 

Which means your lengthy post is based on a false premise.  But just to balance with a counter-argument, the word “Creator” is used in the Declaration of Independence, an essential founding document.

O’Reilly’s point about religion acting as a constraint against evil in society is supported by evidence.  Specifically, it is accepted history that Mussolini was unable to implement a stronger ethnic cleansing against Italian Jews because religious believers in Italy would not permit it.  Religion doesn’t stop individuals like the 9/11 hijackers, but it does constrain rational people from committing excesses that religious believers would find unacceptable.

Dawkin’s point that Stalin, Mao, and Pol were coincidentally atheists who were motivated by a political ideology is foolishness.  Their political ideology was a godless political ideology.  When there is no god and religion is evil, then a cockroach’s life is more valuable than the life of a human who teaches or believes in a religion, simply because a cockroach does not spread what is considered a false and harmful creed.

Dawkins was there pandering to Bill’s audience.  One hand washes the other.

Yeah, a real blowhard, huh??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28political_commentator%29#Early_life_and_education

Regardless of his degree of ‘douchebaggery’, which I find to be pretty high myself, science supports him.

It’s just another hate posts from the left.

“TMP”

Of course, just like Allen West, Herman Cain, Condolleeza Rice, Juan Williams, Michael Steele, Colin Powell and Star Parker.

DAMN plants, all!!!

How could a black person possibly be conservative????

who is “he”?   A pronoun needs a reference point–usually a noun–before he/she/they/it can be used. I can’t tell from your sentence whether the pronoun he, etc. is referring to Dawkins or Bill.

The difference between atheists and believers is that atheists declare all believers idiots, rednecks and worse, while believers leave atheists alone in their views. 

purveyor, if you would like to take a walk on the lighter side of the Internet I would like to invite you to visit TheFrindCenter dot com.

“TMP”

If you had to google that, you’re as illiterate as
you come across in your angry little writ there

Now when you act like a good-mannered little boy,
let me know (politely) if you want to know where you’re gravely mistaken
with your frantically excerpted little paragraphs there and I’ll be glad to enlighten and inform.

Though I can tell the criminality of Israel reference is what got to you.. can’t help you there..

To me, it seems that today’s atheists don’t want anyone to be religious / believe in God because Atheists can’t fathom how anyone’s brain would work that way since, to them, religion is such a ‘primitive’ or ‘stupid’ thought process. The mainstream atheist movement fails to recognize that religious belief helps a lot of Americans live peaceful, law obeying lives, so what’s it matter what they believe privately if they’re still upstanding citizens?

At one point in history, EVERYONE was forced to believe a certain religion. Then religious people in power eventually granted freedom of religion which gave Atheists freedom to ‘not believe.’ Atheists now seem to want to remove all religion from society and make everyone non-believers.

For example – Atheists didn’t want the 9/11 cross to be displayed. Another example: I live in Ohio and our state building had a winter display last year. On the front lawn there was a 25 foot tall Christmas tree that volunteers had decorated with ornaments, a star, and ribbons. Well, Atheists in my town didn’t like it so they petitioned the government to change the name to ‘A Winter Tree.’ Seriously?!? A Winter tree? How does a Christmas Tree display affect Atheists lives in any way shape or form? It’s that kind of outrage that makes people annoyed by Atheist. 

I’m a libertarian, but I don’t always agree with Ron Paul.
Libertarianism is not a religion, it’s a philosophy of government that has existed longer than Ron Paul.
Your overly simplistic views betray your partisanship.
Try reading my reply to purveyor1.

Nothing real original there, huh. They never stray too far off the path.

Silly Billy. Anyone from England knows that a ‘shouting match’ is an argument, it doesn’t need to involve shouting.

Mind you, anyone who is daft enough to believe that their special sky buddy is looking after them needs some serious help anyway.

Atheism, the non prophet organisation.

Is that why the God Squad knock on my door after leaving their kingdom hall meetings each week?

Atheists, like me, have started to get quite sick of having nonsense shoved down our throat from religious types. We all pretty much kept ourselves to ourselves until the mad religious types tried to stop real science facts from being taught in schools and tried to get ‘intelligent design’ to replace it.

Most of us atheists really don’t mind what false god any of you worship, but please keep it to yourselves and stop trying to force your idiotic ‘belief’ system upon us and stop attempting to dumb the education system down to your level.

Which means your lengthy post is based on a false premise. – Ralph

No it doesn’t, because it is such a minor distinction.

Here, let’s substitute your “philosophy” for my use of “belief“…

Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t get the backing that he thinks that he gets from the primary founders. Jefferson’s authoring of the Declaration of Independence deals an even bigger blow to O’Reilly’s America was based on Judeo-Christian philosophy assertions. Jefferson’s “Nature’s God” and “The Laws of Nature” prove that Mr. O’Reilly is historically challenged. – TD with philosophy substitution

Even with the change Jefferson’s “Nature’s God” and “The Laws of Nature” prove that Mr. O’Reilly is historically challenged. Jefferson was still disassociating the thirteen colonies from the Judeo-Christian specific “God”. Look how easy it would have been in that single document to set the course for America  the “Christian Nation”. All that he would have had to write is…

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Moses and the Judeo-Christian God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

It would have been that simple. But, Mr. O’Reilly, and you, are misinterpreting what the primary Founders were up to.  Jefferson didn’t write it that way, because he, and those other four, primary Founders – Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Madison – wanted America to pay homage to the God of “Deism”.

Your argument concerning his use of “Creator” is also problematic. The “creator” with a small “c” could be an unguided process like the Big Bang. Had they, the primary Founders, known what modern scientists know now, they might not have even been Deists that believed in some form of “Providence”.

If you challenge me on the “creator” argument, I have some more bad news for you. I have a theory about it that will blow your mind.

Did you not see my last comment? If you are slow on reading I specifically stated antitheism. If you are intuitive enough to look at the times that posts were made, you would see that it was prior to yours and the post you are addressing. Not that I should assume that you are capable enough to do that. All I did was state facts. Did you not learn anything? State Atheism is in fact the term that is used to describe their policies towards religion on the level of government. Google it. All I did was state their policy. If you want to whine about facts and terms that you are ignorant to, then go ahead. Antitheists is what they were(like Dawkins and Hitchens), but the policy their implemented is State Atheism. Hopefully you learned something today, but then again you are an unregistered so you might not even see this post.

But thank you for stating something irrelevant

Sorry if I offended one of your heroes. I didn’t intend on offending the sheep, but it looks like I have. What examples did you want? Ones of them being antitheists, or ones of them using such fallacious tactics in their spiteful and disingenuous advocacy? You have a lot of insults there but hardly any substance.

Do you deny the rational nuts(or herders) like Sam Harris attribute to be muslim in relation to 9/11? That they are somehow like Nazis? The idea that even though out of a billion people who identify as such, militants in the third world are representative of the entire belief set? Like Hitchens he preaches detest for others siting such narrow minded examples like 9/11, and the Crusades. If anyone does something bad and is religious, then its teh religion’s fault and its representative of the entirety. To marginalize such time frames where imperial states strived for power wealth, just butchers history and shows you to know very little besides what pushes your spiteful idealogy. I assume you just nod your head to whatever they tell you, and don’t actually apply thought to anything.

Also what do these preachers have a monopoly on certain words? Like how their followers parrot “Logic, reason, science” like a bunch of mindless Neanderthals. Even if it does not apply. Sorry if I offended you by having one of your favorite buzzwords in my username. You don’t have to be one of their historically illiterate sheep to use it.

My point made perfect sense. All I did was point out hypocrisy, and a contradiction in piss poor reasoning. Sorry if you weren’t able to comprehend such an easily understandable point like that.

THe devil for sure has blonde hair blue eyes…the mutant genetic

“A bit pugnacious of you, after all, there is a large body
of law that does just that? (refute) In fact, I believe I could have a go at
the subject and, perhaps sway an audience or jury?”

I know where you are going with this…The American culture
is based on Judeo-Christian theology (JCT), hence, its laws are also.  My point and previous comment is strictly
topical to the issue of original intent of the founding fathers; and not the opinion
of lawyers, judges or politicians.  As a Libertarian
I disagree with a large percentage of current law.  But that is for another topic.

I’m sure they indeed intended the United States to have a
culture that reflected JCT.   But, a liberal
(small “L”) democracy based on JCT, is not the same as a theocracy or state-sanctioned
endorsement of a particular brand of religion. 
To reach deeper into history, the Pilgrims certainly did not come to the
North American continent to expand the influence the Anglican Church.

As for the Alien and Sedition Acts…

1.The Naturalization Act of 1795 to extend the duration of
residence required for aliens to become citizens of the United States from five
years to fourteen years.  I HAVE LITTLE
ISSUE WITH THIS.

2.The Alien Act authorized the president to deport any
resident alien considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United
States.  AGAIN, NO ISSUE HERE.

3.The Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to
apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with
the United States of America.  NO ISSUE

4.The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish “false,
scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or its officials.  I HAVE AN ISSUE HERE, BUT I DISLIKE THE
CURRENT PARTISIAN BIAS OF MODERN JOUNALISM. 
IF A JOURNALIST CAN NOT PRINT THE TRUTH, THEN HE IS NOT SERVEING IN THE
ROLE THAT DEMOCRACY REQUIRES.  THEIRFORE SHOULD HAVE NO “JOUNALISTIC” PROTECTIONS.

“…As the paranoia sweeping Europe was bleeding over into
America, calls for secession reached unparalleled heights, and America seemed
ready to rip itself apart.[3] Some of this was seen by Federalists as having
been caused by French and French-sympathizing immigrants…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

If you need further clarification of my position of this,
read the George Washington quote in my reply to Rex the Wonder God.  Although a further discussion of this would
be interesting.  I admit to having
certain Nationalistic tendencies.  Long
story, but I have my reasons.

Finally, as a long time “regular” here, I am rather hard to
offend, ask Leedog.  Any detection of “defensiveness”
is purely coincidental.

God????  What would O Reilly know about God?  He worships at the alter of the almighty dollar.  Perhaps the “in God We Trust” phrase on his dollar bills is all the faith he needs.

The evidence is all around you. You dont see it because you dont want to see it. Science has never explained God away and never will. Science is the hand of God. Creation is here because of God’s hand(science/laws of physics). It takes more faith to believe there is no God than to believe there is a God. After all, the liklihood that we would have evolved without God’s(intelligent design) hand in it is ludicrous. There is more of a chance that a cocacola can would have evolved than for intelligent life to have evolved without God’s hand. Its far more complicated. The thought of evolution without God’s hand in it goes directly against the scientific laws that govern our universe. The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards entropy(that is towards disorder). The only way to make things get better over time is to have an outside force that acts on it(which would be God in the case of evolution). You see, atheist scientists always look over this very obvious principle of science because it does not fit the mold they want it to fit. So if you do actually believe in science and evolution then you must believe in intelligent design as the way evolution happened, otherwise you are not really believing in science(per the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
So there is your evidence based on scientific law. I have provided it and now what will you do with it?

actually it does not. See my comment above for why science not only doesnt suppost his atheism, it directly contradicts his atheism.

Not Bill O’Reilly.

The version with the signatures on it uses a capital “C” in the word, “Creator.”  Check it yourself.  It’s the last word on line three, all the way over to the right.  Judeo-Christianity was so baked into the culture that it wasn’t necessary to spell out the details as you’ve suggested it should have been.

There is an important difference between “belief” and “philosophy.”  One is whether you “believe” or have faith in a religion.  The other is a description of values the religion espouses.  O’Reilly can accurately assert that Judeo-Christian philosophy is at the heart of our culture and its secular institutions especially because of the word “Creator” in the Declaration, but also because it is a fact.  Jefferson may have had screwy beliefs on religion, as was his right, but his lower-cased versions of “creator” and “nature’s god” didn’t make the final cut.  We even had “blue laws” that required stores to be closed on Sunday as recently as the 1970s… remembering the sabbath.

I don’t mind reading your ideas though, so let’s see your mind-blowing speculation on what old TJ may have been alluding to.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/images/declaration_big_enhanced.jpg

In America, a “shouting match” is a shouting match where people shout.  You wouldn’t know that because you’re English.  Also, in America, all religious beliefs and non-beliefs are held equal.  In England, the monarch’s religion is best and everyone else’s is less.  Dawkins substitutes atheism for Anglicanism but works from the same my-way-is-best paradigm.  In America, we equal and respectful.  One person’s Flying Spaghetti Monster is no better than another person’s Fish ‘N Chips Fairy.

umm, you forgot about the Sun, 
2nd law says without continuously adding energy all tends toward entropy, but we have the sun.  the sun adds energy without it the earth would quickly tend toward entropy (death and decay). 

SEEK,

Nice to hear from you.

When I returned to school, back in 1989, with the intent of becoming a Lawyer, I ended up studying Law,  but, not practicing.  Rather I became Philosopher and writer with a heavy focus on Law, history and politics.  I felt there had to be a solution out there in the miasma that would allow society to create laws that were devoid of religious consideration, yet, satisfy religious inclination?  I knew this as Copernicus knew the earth revolved around the sun, I just knew it, but, I had to find the proof!

Oddly enough, I found such while reading a book by a man I thought at the time was legal anathema to me: Judge Robert Bork.  He of the inflexible Constitutional interpretation!  Bork was influenced by a Professor  Herbert Wechsler who proposed a theory of “neutral principles” and law.  Bork finds the philosophy unworkable, Wechsler was enamored with such.  In Wechsler’s theory and views, I had found my life’s philosophy.

Wechsler’s proposal is that all law must be based on “neutral principle” or is no better than a Papal Bull or a command of King Henry–simply the caprice of one side or the other.  Moreover, a law that is “neutral” is a law that will find application or commonality in other instances, based on reason, rather than superstition, ego-centrism or legerdemain, etc.

For example: in the early 90s, a Denver District Judge determined that a woman should be accorded a “bubble of protection” when she approaches a Planned Parenthood Clinic.  Was the Judge establishing a “principle,” or, was such merely a “caprice?”  

Consider a man crossing a picket line during a strike, frequently referred to as a “scab.”  Should the “scab” also receive a 10 foot bubble of protection?  Is the Denver law neutral or capricious?

When we Legislate or adjudicate laws in America, wisdom tells us to plan ahead for an established principle.  However, there are frequently surprises that accompany the laws we make?  Which leads us to the question of ethics vs. morals, that both you and I, find so intriguing…

I have been writing on this philosophy for years.  I have given seminars on the subject, yet, the reticence from either side to accept God given intellect, thus reason, as the basis for human law is provocative!  Carefully read America’s Governmental treatises: “Endowed by our creator with self evident truths, unalienable rights.”  Isn’t Mr Jefferson laying the ground work for neutral principle?  The Bill of Rights is the quintessential example of neutral principles.  I believe the Founder’s referred to neutral principle, as the “equal protection” clause?

I hope this is cogent as the philosophy tends to create contention?  Thank you for your interest.

Purveyor

Did he read the book? Sure doesn’t seem like it. 

Is this how you regularly express yourself, colloquialisms coupled with vulgarity and unfounded conceit? As for LILLY, I believe she is more than capable of engaging me.  She professes to be a law school graduate and I asked her about a rather arcane facet of legal philosophy.  Apparently, something you know nothing about.

I did not intend to insult you or Lilly, however, as a result of your comment I am wary of you?

Purveyor 

NO COMMENT

This
idea is known as Pascal’s Wager and was posed
by the physicist
Blaise Pascal
that even if the existence of God could not be determined
through reason,
a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly
has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

The reason this is repugnant is it
assumes that an all-loving god would punish someone simply for not believing in
something for which there is little, if any, and much contrary evidence.
It’s very strange that the Christian God has decided that one’s willingness to
suspend the very rational thought he gave you determines your eternal fate,
discounting any and all of your positive works on Earth. Worse yet, He would
also condemn the billions of people who are non-Christians, or who never heard
of God.

Would it make you happy if we said we believe in god…and his
name is Allah? How do you know you’re praying to the right god?

Yeah, turns out that the Constitution and the Supreme Court beg to differ.

And where did the sun and other stars come from? its all remnants from the big bang. So what about the singularity that imploded/exploded to cause the big bang. Where did that come from? What was that energy formed from? I postulate that it makes more sense to say that God created it rather than say it just was there on its own. I think it more reasonable to assume(based on the evidence of how everything has turned out with the universe’s creation/organization) that God is just there with no one to create Him than to say that this random singularity was just there with nothing to create it. Both ways require some amount of faith. I believe the latter requires more though.

Your opinionated LOADED comments don’t render themselves as facts.  It is your personal interpretation that you see the hands of your “god” in scientific findings. Which ironically would have been considered heresy in biblical times, as it contradicts the incorrect natural claims made by men much more ignorant than us about the natural world.  And most important to me, most scientists would be in profound disagreement with your comments above.  So keep feeling good about yourself by postulating an imaginary sky daddy controlling everything, and claiming science backs you up…  The nerves!  

We can prove those transmissions through scientific tests you moron!  We KNOW it exists!  Your invisible friend, on the other hand, plays such good hide and go seek that there is not an iota of evidence to show that he, she, or it is there.. except in gullible, imaginary, and very emotional brains.

I guess your version of afterlife is the correct one over the thousands of others?  And because a book written by people much more ignorant than us about the natural world, that means we need to just have faith?  Sorry, I rather rely on intelligence and reason..  You’re so gullible and pathetic!

Jefferson may have had screwy beliefs on religion, as was his right…

Bingo! He was so smart, that Conservatives can’t understand him.

…but his lower-cased versions of “creator” and “nature’s god” didn’t make the final cut.

Nice try, but your analysis and conclusion are back asswards.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/images/declaration_big_enhanced.jpg

“Creator” appears at the end of line three, all the way to the right of the image.

“Nature’s God” appears in line two, beginning directly beneath the word “thirteen” in the title.

I have challenged you on the creator argument but you did not share a mind-blowing theory with me, as promised.

“yeah, let’s rely on science. Would this be the same science that still to this day can’t prevent or cure the common cold? ha, no thanks”

That’s because “the common cold” is about 3000 different viruses, all producing similar symptoms.

For thousands of years, people tried to pray for a cure for smallpox.  It never worked.  After intensive vaccination programs starting around 1950, science eradicated smallpox in 30 years.

You’re damn right I’ll rely on science.  You can stay with witch doctors.

Fact: Hey non believer remember when it happens run towards the light then make amends!

I’m a type 4 regarding God.  Type 1 are theists; they believe in God; Type 2 are atheists; they believe there is no God; Type 3 are agnostics; they believe there isn’t enough evidence one way or the other. Type 4 are those who feel they will have a more meaningful life if they study the Universe and develop some understanding of it.  Types 1,2 and 3 are time wasters.  All religions use fear to keep believers in line; and imo I’d be at least a little insane to ‘believe in’ any of their Gods.

10-6-11
To Bill O’Reilly,Please let me give the other side of the story on atheism and Richard Dawkins.
I challenged Dawkins nine years ago for his scientific evidence in support of atheism and evolution. He has none. That is why he is on the Default Judgment List at http://www.lifescienceprize.org with 374,000 other evolutionists.
I do have the scientific evidence and it proves the exact opposite of atheism and evolution.
You gave the charlatan Dawkin’s book a plug.  How about mentioning mine given that its science encompasses the entire universe and is impossible for atheists and evolutionists to refute?
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach. jmastropaolo@socal:disqus .rr.com, (714) 843-6387, 16291 Magellan Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Regardless of if you believe in God or not, bottom line is HE simply cant believe in a little blue marble floating in space with a dominant species that hails “His” name and then kills millions of other of the same species either in his name, for his honor or because of his supposed words… I’ll believe MY WAY and do my best to be a good man.. which generally means avoiding church and anyone willing to tell me what is written in a book written by another man during a time when people killed each other because “their god” was the best. THIS is all caveman shit.

I am saddened by your coldness. Whether it fits your small scope of how the world works or not does not change the fact that God is real, the evidence is EVERYWHERE, and one day “at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, on heaven, on earth, and under the earth. Every tongue will confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father.” Its only a matter of if you choose to do it now or at judgement day. You are the blind leading the blind and its sad.
 I dont care what would have been considered heresy in Biblical times. Jesus was considered a heretic by the Pharisees during biblical times. So your point really isnt valid. Most scientist would profoundly disagree with my above statement because it does not fit into the mold of a Godless universe they wish to portray. They dismiss those facts out of convenience because it is easier than admitting they are wrong. Its easier than admitting that there is something to be held accountable to one day. Its easier to enjoy a hedonistic lifestyle if you arent concerned about being held accountable.These scientist are hiding behind their intellect and they think science will save them. They are foolish and arrogant. The evidence for God exists more than evidence against God exists. In fact, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AGAINST GOD’s EXISTENCE. None! Not one shred! There is nothing that even suggests that God does not exist. I am a student of science and I have not been a Christian but for two years. I have done plenty of searching on the issue.
 You have the right to disagree with me and think whatever you would like. It does not render the Truth a lie. It does not turn fact into fiction.
And lastly remember, “Do not be fooled, God CANNOT be mocked. For what a man reaps what he sows”.
You can laugh at me all the way to atheist convention. In the end, God wins.

LILLY,

First, I was sincere regarding my apology for being somewhat obnoxious a few months back.  Second, I was/am sincere about my inquiry regarding “neutral principles.”  I am NOT a Lawyer, rather a legal Philosopher, thus, I play with the law, whereas you live within its confines.  Such is why I sought your thoughts on the subject…

Lastly, REX THE WONDER GOD sent me a barely comprehensible letter defending you, I think?  Ouch! 

I believe he must have misinterpreted my intentions.  Perhaps you did as well and given my previous letters to you, such could be understandable?

Purveyor

Nice to make your acquaintance:

Apparently, I was a bit overwhelmed on this night, and confused by who was who and who was saying what!  FREE COMMON SENSE, REX THE WONDER GOD and a couple others, hence, in my mind I attributed thoughts to the wrong person at various times?  Anyway, after re-reading yours and my dialogue, I can only wonder why we haven’t crossed paths before.

In the future, I look forward to interesting discourse and please do not think that a question or challenge is an insult.  Quid pro quo, I assume?  Your ability to recapitulate historical events is admirable.  As I am a Philosopher, I hope you can appreciate my capacity for “connecting the dots,” so to speak?

Again, “nice to make your acquaintance.”

Purveyor of Rhetoric

Oh yes, I have an adventurous streak in me!

You wrote “TheFrindCenter.com”???  Is that correct?  Or the “Friend” center is what you intended?

Can you clarify, I promise I’ll look!  LOL

Purveyor

Oh yes, I have an adventurous streak in me!

You wrote “TheFrindCenter.com”???  Is that correct?  Or the “Friend” center is what you intended?

Can you clarify, I promise I’ll look!  LOL

Purveyor

Why does Bill O’Reilly always explain science with morality?  He really has no clue what he’s talking about.

True

I am always glad to see you and appreciate your encouragement. I believe both of us are Conservative, however, we are “principled” conservatives. My philosophy of neutral principle, articulates the need for a core of reason that will guide and govern society.

However, that reason, frequently, also satisfies emotional or moral inclinations. Moreover, God given reason should be the basis for human interaction. I know this can be a tough sell as we all have our “pet projects,” so to speak. But, that is where integrity, honor, character and REASON come into play to guide us?

Vaya con Dios, amigo

Purveyor

 Actually it does.  Say someone comes into your home unannounced and may represent a potential threat to your life, you have every right to kill them unless they make a retreat.  Same with babies. 

I have challenged you on the creator argument but you did not share a mind-blowing theory with me, as promised.

Surf’s up, and I have my priorities.

I’ll try to get started explaining my “mind-blowing” lower case creator theory when I get back in town, tonight. In the mean time, take a look at this image that establishes Jefferson’s intitial formating…

IMAGE: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6BYG-3Y67vs/TjgDKvBNKXI/AAAAAAAAAPI/pxiMCwEouEg/s640/declarationnocaps.gif

http://www.thefriendcenter.com/

Not sure if anyone ever revisits these posts the following day, but I have one question for all you brilliant non-believers. If “science” is “proof” then where is the proof for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which theoretical physicists insist explains the amount of gravity in the Universe. If you can’t see it, feel it or touch it, does it exist. I see posting where microwaves can be seen, just not by the naked eye. But Dark Matter cannot; Dark Energy cannot; hell even gravity cannot be. I’ll await the specific answers to these specific from all you smart ones out there.

What do you mean you can’t use “agnostic” alone?

The problem is that we are trying to use black and white terms to describe a full spectrum of shades and colors.  For myself, I can’t say whether I am agnostic, atheist or a believer unless you tell me specifically how you define god, and what the exact threshold of “percentage chance of being true” counts as agnostic vs atheist vs believer. If you define god as being basically “nature”, similar to Einstein’s or Spinoza’s version, I say “yeah, I guess that exists”.  If you say god is an entity that has emotions similar to human emotions (desires, anger, happiness, love, etc), I say the chance of that being existing is highly unlikely, less than 1%.

So I’ve described my opinion, you tell me whether that makes me atheist, agnostic or a believer.

This was the first time I encountered “REX, the Wonder God.” He reminded me of a comedian that that can say a lot, without saying anything?

Have you ever seen him before? I believe my “NO COMMENT” response was appropriate? LOL

Purveyor

Oh dear, another American who mistakenly believes the world revolves around them, you simply prove the point I was making – you may think that yours is the one true version of English but it isn’t, as with all languages they evolve over time and it is silly for anyone (including you and Billy) to assume that a phrase means the same thing across all nations.

You are incorrect about your claims regarding religion in the UK, your view was probably correct around the time of the Pilgrim Fathers – which just shows how out of date you are.

” In America, we equal and respectful.”
And that is the funniest thing I have read all week, simply because you think its true.

Well, from the discussions and debates I’ve seen/read, using “agnostic” alone is simply incorrect. It doesn’t fit with the “actual” definition of agnostic. However, I must admit, on a colloquial level we’ve mostly come to an agreement that “agnostic” is synonymous with “undecided.”

As for your view, it seems to fit with ignosticism.

Well, from the discussions and debates I’ve seen/read, using “agnostic” alone is simply incorrect. It doesn’t fit with the “actual” definition of agnostic. However, I must admit, on a colloquial level we’ve mostly come to an agreement that “agnostic” is synonymous with “undecided.”

As for your view, it seems to fit with ignosticism.

I was addressing your use of “atheistic regime.” To say they were “atheistic” is meaningless. I just reread the post I was responding to and, no, you did not use the term “antitheism.”

I said previous post. It wasn’t relevant in the one you were responding to. These regimes were atheistic in the sense that they were atheist, and required atheism. I also refuted the notion that atheism or antitheism could possibly be blamed for the entirety. That would be a narrow assertion to make. Thing is you can’t have it both ways. If people are going to try to push revisionists and absurdist idiocy that ‘religion is to blame for all problems eva’, then for at least a strand of intellectual consistency you have to acknowledge the fact that atheists committed mass murder for the same reasons historically illiterate advocates blame religion for an entirety, in complex periods of history that they don’t understand or are ignorant to. Even though the quest for wealth, power, and political might should be easily understandable concepts. As we can, they unfortunately are not.

http://youtu.be/_Mf0OM1V874

sick of religion….check out this pretty solid video.
http://youtu.be/_Mf0OM1V874

It doesn’t require any faith to reject all the current and past biblical gods. This picture you paint of a “nebulous god” or “initial prime mover”
isn’t consistent with the god O’Reilly and most believers follow who supposedly made the world in 7 days, and takes an active interest in humans daily lives.

If you want to call the “initial spark” or whatever set the wheels in
motion to create life in our infinitesimally small corner of the
universe “god,” then fine.  The truth is we
don’t know for sure what that initial spark was. So pretending to know
it was some intelligent force/being doesn’t really advance the
conversation, especially considering it would take an even MORE
advanced being/force to create that being/force capable of making the
universe.

The definition of agnostic, courtesy of Dictionary.com:
(noun)
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. 3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.

As these definitions show, agnostic can stand well on its own.

The way I see it, agnostic can be used in two ways. By itself it basically means that you are undecided on the whole question. You refuse to take a position on the question, and while you do not believe in any specific god, you have not rejected belief in such a supernatural power. Agnostic can also be used as a qualifier for a belief. Agnostic christian, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, and so on and so forth. In this sense, agnostic means that you have taken a position on the question, but you realize that you do not *know* ultimate truth. You realize your belief is just that, a belief. O’Reilly seems *not* to be an agnostic christian.

Rob Brown: You sound to me like an agnostic deist, if you would want to label yourself further. 

“The thought of evolution without God’s hand in it goes directly against the scientific laws that govern our universe”Would you care to explain this…
What I find ludicrous is your term “atheist scientists.”
To depict science as having a “mould” or an agenda is such a childish thing to say.  Science doesn’t pick a conclusion and then try to come up with things to justify it.  It simply tries to prove itself wrong.  
You say the only way to make things get better over time is to have an outside force that acts on it.  Intelligent design hasn’t governed the make up and progress of life on this planet.  Nature has.  Very simply.  The strongest survive.  It’s such a simple principal and has nothing at all to do with a governing hand of god.  You haven’t provided even the simplest form of evidence to prove otherwise.  
Now…
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.  
Your “understanding” of entropy is quite far off the mark and I feel that whoever taught you this simple rule, has taught you in a way that tends toward your own mould.  
“Everything tends toward entropy, disorder.”
That’s partially true.  However, “order” can only be produced by increasing entropy.  This is because producing order out of chaos involves a change in the system, which can only be produced by expending energy.  The expenditure of energy is never perfectly efficient and so it always increases the overall amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered, even as order is produced from the remaining energy. 
What’s so beautiful about that concept, is that it’s not “atheist” science, it’s just science.  
No agenda, no discrimination.  Just truth.  

@yahoo-ODGVEXE5PUEH7XVYLKNG25JZV4:disqus  @mike d: Oh but it DOES require faith! It requires faith that there is no God! One of the definitions of faith from dictionary.com is this: Faith: belief that is not based on proof: <—- Now, as was stated earlier. You cannot prove there is no God. God has never been disproven. Therefore, it takes faith to say there is no God. It is an act of faith because you are believing in something that you have ZERO proof for. Therefore your premise is null. @d0d113eff0f3cda07f124c434f3c71f2:disqus You asked for me to explain my statement. If you would have read my whole comment you wouldve seen I did explain it. I explained it using the second law of thermodynamics. You said that its all nature decided and only the strongest survive. Survival of the fittest does not explain what gave the big bang its start.  You said that God has nothing to do with it. Tell me then, why would an asexual organism become a heterosexual organism? The way we as humans reproduce is not very efficient. In fact, if we were to produce asexually in prehistoric times our species wouldve had an even better chance at survival. Why would there have been a need to change the way the organisms reproduce(causing male/female to form)? Why not all be asexual then? Once again, It would be far more efficient. You said I havent showed a single shred of evidence to prove that its not only the strongest that survive. I never tried to say that the strongest are not the survivors. Im not sure if youre debating me and another unknown person or you are just picking things you wished I had said and blowing hot air. I like how you went on to describe the second law of thermodynamics in such beautifully intelligent terms but you did not show how my statements were false.   
No matter how much education you attain and no matter how wise in your own eyes you may be, you will still be foolish until you can admit there is a God. I cant help you and I will never convince you. You and I may both be educated but it seems you have fallen in to the same trap as many others. You have learned things to be the way you want them to be and nobody will ever be able to tell you different. I have only just become a Christian in the last two years so I have seen things from the other side and now I see them quite differently.

Well said Daniel.

@thghtsrmyown You’re making the mistake of misplacing the burden of proof. The burden of proof is those making the extraordinary claims. I’m not claiming to know what started the initial spark, . I’m fine with not knowing, until science and earthly knowledge figures it out. Even if more knowledge came along that rendered the Big Bang theory inept, that also wouldn’t prove existence of a god, it’s not an either/or proposition.

Under your guidelines of thought, it’s an equally valid premise to say: It takes faith to not believe in unicorns. You can’t prove there are no unicorns. You can’t prove there are no leprechauns. You can’t prove there is no Zeus. You can’t prove that we’re not all just a big simulation running on a giant alien computer.

I think blah-blah about fiction will never have end, My question is :who create universe,why most criminal
creature is god,where came from this definition?
Before translation of judas composition–blah-blah- nobody knew real things.What is the problem ?
If you do not like–stay away, everybody independent. Only bad thing that some feligious charlatans
want to control life other people.STOP!! do not knock in my door if I NOT CALL you!!

I think blah-blah about fiction will never have end, My question is :who create universe,why most criminal
creature is god,where came from this definition?please give his address if you can or shut up!!!
Before translation of judas composition–blah-blah nobody knew real things.What is the problem ?
If you do not like–stay away, everybody independent. Only bad thing that some feligious charlatans
want to control life other people.STOP!! do not knock in my door if I NOT CALL you!!

Did your government medication not come in on time or something? 

so sad this is so:
‘Last point: we are pretty much at the end of the long dominance of the
U.S. in the Nobel science prizes, because religiots captured
conservatives and radical conservative captured the Republican party and
now we have institutionalized checks and balance government with
Stupidity and Willful Ignorance being full constitutional parters, so
it’s worthwhile to take a look at the American winners before the right
succeeds in trashing the Nobels.’