Tide Goes In, Tide Goes Out. You Can't Explain That (We Can.) So God Exists.v
Bill O'Reilly recently spoke with David Silverman, the man who calls himself the President of American Atheists.
O'Reilly: "I'll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion," he told Silverman. "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in."
Putting thousands or years of work from astronomers, oceanographers, and scientists to shame, O'Reilly throws his insight into the mix, claiming the existence of God to be proven through the inexplicable nature of the tides of the ocean.
During an interview with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group, O'Reilly managed to simplify the existence of God by surmising, "tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication" in a calm, Zen-master like fashion; strengthening the credibility of his argument by shedding light on Silverman's inability to explain this remarkable phenomenon that everyone learned in grade school along with the concept of "gravity."
Fast forward to the 1:50 mark to view the far-fetched insight that O'Reilly adds to the discussion, followed by Silverman's utter astonishment at what insanity he has just witnessed escape O'Reilly's mouth.
The greatest part about this statement is that with it... a meme was born, where people on the internet put Mr. O'Reilly into the position of proving God by things that normal people can't explain. For instance:
Here was the internet's greatest response:
You Can't Explain The Moon's Origins - So God Existsv
"Okay, how'd the moon get there? Look, you pinheads who attacked me for this, you guys are just desperate. How'd the moon get there? How'd the sun get there? How'd it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it. How come? Why not? How'd it get here? How did that little amoeba get here, crawl out there? How'd it do it?"
Corresponding with his famous remark of "tide goes in, tide goes out," where he showed the world he didn't pay attention in 3rd grade science, O'Reilly addressed his incredible statement with even more how's and why's, because he understands that the best way to justify yourself is to cause even more confusion.
It's kind of like accidentally driving your car into a river and deciding to throw in the homework you didn't finish, as well as your unpaid parking tickets, hoping that nobody will notice.
We can hold to the generous assumption that O'Reilly was simply speaking out of his ass during the taping, but given the amount of time between the interview with Silverman and the taping of this clip, this is the rationale that he managed to come up with?
It kind of drives in the point that we really should just give up, as a society, in trying to correct Bill O'Reilly about anything intellectual.
Bill O'Reilly just does not understand science.
Science Should Consider Everything. Even Stuff That's Been Disproven.v
"Look, there are a lot of very brilliant scholars who believe the reason we have incomplete science on evolution is that there is a higher power involved in this and you should consider it as a scientist.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, Professor. And I think the people like the ACLU, who don't want you to mention it in your biology class, are the Taliban. I think THEY are the ones that are infringing on the rights of all American students by not allowing that to be at least considered."
Launching blame on others is not a foreign tactic to O'Reilly, and as always, he never ceases to disappoint in delivering the wonderment of his opinions, this time by likening the ACLU to the Taliban. Cause there's nothing greater than comparing a human rights organization to the tyrannical leaders of some of America's greatest enemies to make your point that "science" isn't open-minded enough.
No, they are NOT the Taliban. The ACLU, Atheists, and the scientific community in general would love to throw Christian Creationism into the lexicon of the youth as actual "theory."
All anyone would have to do is provide scientific evidence, in the form of the kind of proof we have for the existence of creatures millions of years old, to prove that something that supposedly happened only a few thousand years ago actually went down.
According to O'Reilly's reasoning, the world is turned upside down and America is under the constraint of an internal enemy, the ACLU, because really, what's worse than having the right to a voice?
Teaching Creationism as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution in schools would be like teaching Lord of the Rings as an alternative to ancient history.
Believe in God! Science is Harder!v
"It takes more faith to not believe and to think that this was all luck and [that] all this human body and all the intricacies of it, [are] all luck, than it does to believe in a diety."
Using faith to postulate a justification of the existence of a God once again (which is really quite like using the "I believe in fairies, so they must exist" argument), this time O'Reilly attempts to persuade others into his belief of a higher being by emulating the minimal efforts it takes to actually believe while degrading the extensive and substantial amount of research scientists have put into understanding the universe.
So basically, "it's so much easier to be stubborn than to try and learn anything, and if this many people are stubborn about the same thing you might as well join the party" -- is what he's saying.
It propels people to use their faith for more worthwhile means.
So here's an idea for Mr. O'Relly that really just ties everything together into a nice, neat, little package: If it takes more faith to not believe, why waste faith on believing, when all of it can be channeled towards being doubtful, and eventually, more scientifically sound? Faith is wasted on Gods, cause they have it easy -- it should be given to science.
Science Doesn't Advance Morality, But Jesus Does
"Science doesn't advance the human condition in any moralistic way -- and Jesus did."
Once again completely missing the point of scientific evaluation, Bill O'Reilly decides to drive in a really important point, Jesus did everything for morality while science does nothing.
Awesome point! Why? Because it brings up the fact that science is objective -- which means it is relatively free from human corruption (when done properly,) which means facts that help us better understand the world are based on the best possible understand of impartial and, wait for it, pure.
*Consults bracelet* yep, I think that's actually what Jesus would do.
On a side note, I'm also not sure if Jesus would use the invalidation, corruption and complete misinterpretation of people's core belief systems in order to cash a paycheck. Just sayin'.
Science is All Guesswork, Dinosaurs Might Not Have Even Existed
"As you may know, global warming is cyclical, and right now it's the focus of a ferocious debate -- almost as ferocious as a T. rex..." this was the introductory statement used to establish his show's debate dealing with global warming which almost implies that Bill O'Reilly... doesn't believe in dinosaurs?
In a response made the day after the previous statement as to whether global warming is natural or man-made, he said "it's all guesswork, and I'll leave the definitive word to the deity."
Once again showing us that he loves to straddle a fence and then do gymnastics around both sides, O'Reilly exposes either his lack of short term memory or his sheer ignorance of what was just discussed on the previous day's "Factor."
This switcheroo that O'Reilly finds himself in is different from the rest of his vapid and incredibly doubtful remarks on scientific research because this one doesn't involve his opinions or religious biases, but is simply the product of his naive indifference combined with his usual act of speaking out of his ass.
Reinforcing his inability to have an opinion on topics not based on morality or religion, O'Reilly succeeds once again in bemusing Americans with his enigmatic and idiotic character.
Teaching Evolution as Scientific Theory is Fascism. Fascism.
"Just because science has a gap in it, that does not entitle you to turn to any alternatives -- that's fascism. For you to say that you can't mention an alternative [doesn't make sense because] men [who are] more brilliant than you believe in a higher power, [yet] you insist that you can't even mention it, that is fascism."
O'Reilly's popular solution to his inabilitiy to debate on reasonable terms is to throw an incredible amount of over exaggerated blame onto his opponent, leaving them at a loss for words due to the absurdity of his claims.
In the debate over what should be taught in relation to evolution in schools, involving Richard Dawkins, a self proclaimed "committed atheist," O'Reilly proclaims that the gaps in the theory should "be explored," and that the Christian view and the Christian explanation of the creation of humankind should be presented in classrooms, and to fail to do so is fascism.
Which isn't exactly sound logic, because (and we're just being fair to everyone involved here by keeping things equal) if we were to do that in schools: explore the holes in evolution and teach the Christian creation mythology, then we'd have to spend a part of the class exploring the holes in the Creation theory itself -- and if teachers were forced to do that, then they'd probably have to keep the schools open for two extra days a week (with no smoke breaks, at that.)
Science Has Holes in It - And Those Holes Are GOD
"Science is not always incomplete and I'll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours in a day. Alright. That's science. And there are four seasons. That's science. So you can state things with certainty in biology or any other science you want. However, if I'm a student in your class and you're telling me, well, there might have been a meteor or big bang or there might have been this or there might have been that, I'm gonna raise my hand like the wise guy I am and say "Professor, might there be a higher power that contributed to the fact that we're all here?" and you say - what?"
The wise guy, indeed, O'Reilly riddles Americans once again, posing the perplexing question of how he's able to once again dumbfound us with such genuine ignorance.
During a discussion with Jason Rosenhouse on Intelligent Design creationism, O'Reilly explicitly states his inquiry to impose the idea of God creating the universe to high school students in science classrooms across America. Because by reversing the system, this can only provoke diversification of perspectives and religious tolerance, right?
Never one holding back in sharing his insights, O'Reilly decided to imbue us all with his knowledge of how many hours are in a day and how many seasons are in a year to "prove" his awareness of the concept of time as science. It's 11:45AM... SCIENCE!
Read the transcript and be prepared to either laugh or shoot your brains out, depending on the amount of O'Reilly you've been able to tolerate thus far -- apologies for all the rage you must be experiencing right now.