Colbert Rips O’Reilly Again

by Luke Muehlhauser on February 8, 2011 in Funny,Video

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }

MAtheist February 8, 2011 at 9:27 pm

Colbert is genius. (Swamp Loggers!! HA)

  (Quote)

MarkD February 8, 2011 at 11:50 pm

The tree grows up. The tree falls down. No one can explain it except the 753J Tracked Feller Buncher.

  (Quote)

Derrida February 9, 2011 at 2:32 am

Analogy holds up, analogy falls down, never a mis-communication…

Bed goes up, bed goes down…

  (Quote)

mpg February 9, 2011 at 4:32 am

That was fantastic! Gotta love Bill O’Reilluy… oh and Steve Colbert.

  (Quote)

James Thompson February 9, 2011 at 6:37 am

Isn’t that a good argument for naturalism? No god interfering with physical laws?

  (Quote)

Patrick who is not Patrick February 9, 2011 at 6:47 am

Isn’t that a good argument for naturalism?No god interfering with physical laws?  

That’s the magic of religion. Orderly physical laws are proof of a god with an orderly nature who underpins the physical laws of the universe. Inexplicable events that cannot be described with orderly physical laws are miraculous events that prove an intervening god who violates the physical laws of the universe. Theology is a one way ratchet that only turns towards godding everything up.

  (Quote)

Rob February 9, 2011 at 7:45 am

Patrick ~ Patrick,

I have pointed out that hilarious contradiction in the theist’s “explanation” before, but for some reason it just gets no traction with the theists. The theist argues that the order of the universe is evidence for god, and also that the occasional violations of that order are also evidence for god. Doh!

  (Quote)

Haecceitas February 9, 2011 at 10:56 am

Patrick ~ Patrick,I have pointed out that hilarious contradiction in the theist’s “explanation” before, but for some reason it just gets no traction with the theists. The theist argues that the order of the universe is evidence for god, and also that the occasional violations of that order are also evidence for god. Doh!  

I don’t see a contradiction there. A theist may hold that theism would predict a universe with lawlike general regularities. Nothing in that excludes the possibility that there may still be very special events that are best explained as the results of divine action. You may argue that this view is wrong but it’s in no way contradictory.

  (Quote)

Rob February 9, 2011 at 1:52 pm

Haecceitas,

It’s contradictory to use them both as an argument for god:

P exists, and the best explanation for P is God.
Sometimes ~P, and the best explanation for that is God.

That’s just idiotic. But, most apologetics is idiotic.

  (Quote)

Patrick February 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Well, they could argue that god predicts P, and sometimes ~P, and that we have exactly as much P and ~P as god would predict.

Its not contradictory, its just stupid ad hoc nonsense.

  (Quote)

Rob February 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm

The belief that God is responsible for P and ~P is not contradictory, I agree.

  (Quote)

Martin February 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Rob and Patrick/not Patrick,

Doesn’t seem contradictory to me. If a bit of software reasons that the best explanation for its existence is a programmer, then it could also reason that violations of the program are also evidence of the programmer farting around with things.

The programmer giveth and the programmer doth taketh away…

  (Quote)

Steven R. Who Isn't Patrick who is not Patrick February 9, 2011 at 3:53 pm

You guise, you gotta do it the right way. P when it’s convenient to have a God who abides with natural laws, ~P when it isn’t and let’s add T (transcendental) whenever we need to appeal to emotions or something.

  (Quote)

PDH February 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm

Pfft, these are all just “Explanations of the Gaps,” which are exactly as bad as, ‘Non-explanations of the Gaps.”

  (Quote)

Patrick February 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm

Eh… I usually sign my stuff Patrick but now there’s someone else who does that. The short form way to tell the difference is that he appears to be Christian and I view Christianity as completely lacking in intellectual respectability ever since it became clear that God doesn’t live on the other side of an ocean in the sky.

  (Quote)

Steven R. (Who isn't either Patrick) February 9, 2011 at 6:36 pm

Eh… I usually sign my stuff Patrick but now there’s someone else who does that.The short form way to tell the difference is that he appears to be Christian and I view Christianity as completely lacking in intellectual respectability ever since it became clear that God doesn’t live on the other side of an ocean in the sky.  

http://memegenerator.net/Bill-Oreilly-Proves-God/ImageMacro/5668325/Tide-goes-in-Tide-Goes-out-no-miscommunications-Patrick-posts-lots-of-miscommunications

I admit, at first I was a little confused. “Patrick? Saying the Fine-Tuning Argument ‘works’ in its premises??” though I did suspect I was talking to someone else, though by “fake” Patrick’s last comment, I was very convinced it wasn’t you.

  (Quote)

Haecceitas February 10, 2011 at 2:48 am

Patrick is a christian, Patrick is an atheist… never a miscommunication.

  (Quote)

Mike Young February 10, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Colbert is a Christian. A Catholic, and he is pretty open about it.

The belief that God is responsible for P and ~P is not contradictory, I agree.

Suppose p is the event of my eating lunch, If I eat lunch of my own volition, P is the case I am responsible for P. if I dont of my own volition (I could have and chose not to) then ~P is that case and I am responsible for ~P

On that senario I can be responsible for both P and ~P. no problem bro.
so god could be responsible for cases of laws of physics applying and he could be responsible for those laws not applying. No contradiciton

  (Quote)

Derrida February 11, 2011 at 2:36 am

  (Quote)

TRUTHOVERfaith February 12, 2011 at 2:58 am

Bill O’Reilys logic fits really well with the asinine doctrines of Christianity.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment