Everyone should remember Bill O’Reilly’s idiotic comment about the tides proving god’s existence. I talked about it in a post last month. It seems that those of us on the blogosphere struck a nerve with O’Reilly causing him to scramble to explain himself.
Of course, in typical O’Reilly fashion, his explanation involved calling everyone who has the gall to criticize him a “pinhead,” and claiming we are all just “desperate,” whatever that means. I suppose this means I am now officially a pinhead.
Yes, yes, I know my blog has hardly been around long enough for someone like O’Reilly to notice mine in particular, but it’s close enough for me. Being called a pinhead by someone who so regularly shows his ignorance of and outright disdain for both science and atheists is a badge of honor in my book.
In any case, his response was an ignorant rant of even more epic proportions than his last one. I would like to call attention to one of the low points in his argument.
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?
|One of mars’ apparently non-existent moons|
So what exactly does the earth have that Mars does not have? I tried to be fair to him I really did, but he had only mentioned two things at this point, the sun and the moon. If he is really unaware that Mars orbits the same sun as us then there is no hope for humanity, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is talking about the moon. The problem is that that Mars actually has two moons, so he still comes out as looking like a horribly ignorant buffoon.
Truthfully I don’t even have to quote anymore of his argument because it all breaks down the same stupid nonsense that O’Reilly always uses in these arguments. His entire argument for god’s existence is always a giant argument from ignorance. I cannot remember him ever once defending his beliefs in this area without resorting to this. He seems to believe a lack of scientific explanation (or even his lack of awareness of such) justifies a belief in god. It does not, and cannot, reasonably do this. Furthermore, this has been pointed out to him multiple times and yet he persists in using this same argument.
I really have a hard time understanding how people manage to stomach his program, and his ignorance.