O'Reilly and Kelly Fight Over Atheist Sign In WA State Capitol

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

The governor of Washington has allowed a group of atheists to display an anti-religion sign next to the Nativity scene inside the state's capitol building.

This has drawn the ire of religious groups across the country, and has been a topic of discussion for Fox News hosts and anchors.

On Thursday, FNC's Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly had an extremely heated debate over the legal issues surrounding this matter (video embedded below the fold, h/t Hot Air):

Who do you think has more fun during these debates: O'Reilly or Kelly?

For those interested, the sign in the capitol building says:

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds.

Nice sentiment during the holidays, dontcha think?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

She chewed Know-It-All up

She chewed Know-It-All up and spat him out. I just wish she had also grabbed his pointing finger and chomped it for good measure.

Ponder This...

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds."

And yet Communist Russia had no religion, yet enslaved people's hearts, minds and bodies.

Communism

You forget it also killed them.

But religion is evil.  Give me a break.

Just think of it this way - that sign with stupidity next to a loving scene of a family welcoming a  newborn baby.  Which is more abrasive and rude?

I'm fond of saying scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.  Those who are supposed to be "free thinkers" (atheists) are often the ones most rigid about not being open to other modes of ideology.  The irony is thick, but they'll never get it.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

I hope when the left's

I hope when the left's favorite "holiday", may day, rolls around we can put a sign up in the state capitol declaring that "Communism is a but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds".

And murdered 20 million

And murdered 20 million people.

That 20 million figure may

That 20 million figure may be low. For those people that want to learn about the Bloody History of Communism... Obama The Next Great Communist Leader?

 

 Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

I don't care...

...who's winning this 'debate' - Megyn is just plain HOT!  She's second only to A.C. in beauty & brains.

Good Orderly Direction

Joe4Coulter, by A C you mean

Alan Colmes?

 

Just kidding.

Megyn did not let up or give in to probably the most powerful man at Fox News (because of his ratings)

I like Bill O and am equally outraged by the aetheists.

But he shouldn't insist on his interpretation of the law when debating Kelly.

And yes, she is hot.

 

 

A.C.?

Anderson Cooper? 

you 2 r killin me...

...alan colmes and anderson cooper are NOT blond....doh!

Good Orderly Direction

Alan Colmes as a blond?...

a visual I'd rather not consider but I'm sure he wears heels ;)

------------------------------------ 

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

 Meygan won that debate

 Meygan won that debate because any speech, no matter how insulting is protected under the 1st Amendment.  For O'Reilly to state that the government should regulate that speech is inviting things such as the Fairness Doctrine.

Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration

http://www.despair.com/government.html

Miz, their is be legal

Miz, their is be legal ground here but let's face it, it's as uncivil as having a KKK rally in a park next to a black church. This having a atheist anti-religion display next to a nativity is entirely uncivil. 

True

     Uncivil, yes.  It's still not illegal.  BTW, I think hate speech shouldn't be regulated either.  The fact remains, the 1st amendment is in place to protect anyone from the government regulating speech.  O'Reilly notion that the government should do something about that vile sign is only the starting point.  We could end up with the fairness doctrine, more speech added to the the hate crime law, or worse; regulated speech you find in Cuba or (God Forbid) Pol Pot's Cambodia.

     I find that sign to be absolutely repugnant.  But I will defend anyone's right to be repugnant as oppose to living in fear of having the speech (and thought) police come down upon us.

Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration

http://www.despair.com/government.html

Uncivil maybe, rude certainly

But protected under the 1st amendment. Period.

much like natzis marching in

much like natzis marching in scolkie ill in the 70s their 1st amendment rights were overturned. not all  speech is protected you cant yell fire in a crowed room just for fun

Thats not quite true, the

Thats not quite true, the left has defined a class of hate speech that they have made unlawful.

I think the biggest point to be made he is that this borders on the government support the suppression of the free exercise of religion. 

If they want to say that putting up the ten commandments equals the government establishing a State religion, than putting this up suppresses the free exercise thereof.

vicis pro insurgo est propinquus

As an evangelical Christian

As an evangelical Christian I agree with miz.  I have no problem with the athiests and their sign, they have the same right to free speech that I do.  And free speech can and maybe at times should be offensive.  After all, it got a lot of so-called Christians like O'Reilly all exercised.  Wonder when O'reilly last saw the inside of a church or read his Bible?  I wonder if he knows free speech is an inalienable right, granted by God and (supposedly) protected by Government.?  Athiests have God-given rights too.

I dont see the atheist's sign as offensive so much as ignorant of Christianity.  Religion is the problem, not Christianity. 

Very!

>>Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds<<

Guess the Governess of Washington is very, very religeous.

Sheesh

I can't believe I have to put up with Gregoire for four more years. 

Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July.  Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan

Michelle... My heart goes

Michelle...

My heart goes out to you...we here in NW Mt. where I live get the  Spokane stations as our local news (no choice)...so I have followed the cheating leftist witch for years...

Franken/Soros/leftists are taking her path as to counting votes is he not?

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Thanks Bt

Thanks!  And I'm sorry you've been following the wicked witch of the west (when Pelosi's on the east coast that is).  I don't even watch local news out here.

Hahaha, you mean counting and counting and counting until you get the outcome you want?  Or finding mysterious votes locked in a shed or car trunk after weeks?  Or a combination of the two?  She's made an art out of stealing elections, hasn't she? 

Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July.  Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan

I saw this last night, I

I saw this last night, I have also posted links about this very subject going on in the state capitol of Wa. which is an outrage as far as I am concerned...these atheists have a sign, just words, this is not a Holiday or Christmas symbol of any kind in my opinion, it is just another attempt at slamming Christmas, Christianity and all this country was founded upon.

I suppose Kelly knows the law just fine, but it isn't the first time I have disagreed with her either over time, I like her, have nothing against her, it is just that I was on BOR's side regarding this last night.

Kelly being a hot babe to you guys here has nothing to do with the subject at hand  if you know what I mean...  ;-)

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I can't get to this site

I can't get to this site from my home computer anymore - does anybody know what's up with that?

Nope. You seem to be

Nope.

You seem to be doing just fine now though...

...Dang it all anyway.   ;-)

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

bt,

His Mommy probably put controls on his Fisher Price "My First Big Computer"... 

I'm on my work computer.  I

I'm on my work computer.  I can't access the site from my home computer.

I have had that issue too

Not lately but I've had my anti-virus direct  me to an HTML page that explains this site (and drudge report) were dangerous or something like that, cant recall the exact wording.  I simply had to refresh a few times until I eventually got it, but did think that it was strange.

Zippy....

The helos are very quiet. You won't be aware until they set down on your (moms) front lawn.

Best to go quietly; the neighbors will appreciate it.

Yeah...

Yeah...

Arkansas--

I am having the same problem. I am not here either.

God, I just want to come out of the shadows and be free.

No, you don't get it.  I

No, you don't get it.  I can access the site from work, but not my home computer.

Kelly being a hot babe to you guys here has nothing to do with t

"Kelly being a hot babe to you guys here has nothing to do with the subject at hand  if you know what I mean...  ;-)"

I have no idea what you are implying bigtimer, but after watching that video I have a strange urge to pull out my deck of cards and play a game of solitaire ;-)

He had my vote

Kelly

Actually, Kelly's strong points are shes, articulate, dogged, and talks REALLY FAST and her voice can run right over people in an argument when she needs to and thus is a good debater to Bill O (go to YouTube for Bill bringing Jon Stewart Bill Maher to the point of tears).

Kelly is right about it being protected speach. The point is we have to be prepared to taking it to the athiests. They killed 100,000,000 in the last century and they can't escape that guilt and they need to know it. If the government doesn't police athiest public statements they need to know that the people (not just the christians) will fight back with the help of the constitution. I think the person above who pointed out that athiests are fundamentalists is absolutely correct.

I would like to see our atheist friends....

....put that sign up outside a local mosque and see how long it would last.

Yes, I know a mosque is not a government building, but isn't it interesting that they put the sign up next to a Nativity scene and not next to some sort of symbol that celebrates Eid al-Adha which also takes place this month.

http://islam.about.com/od/hajj/a/adha.htm

I don't suppose it has anything to do with how the adherents of each religion might react to such a provocation, which is what it is.  In fact, such a sign in front of a mosque would likely cause CAIR to come out and claim a hate crime had been committed against all of Islam.

Shows you how gutless the atheists really are IMHO.

From the "There are no Absolutes Society"

And I am absolutely sure that there are no absolutes. </sarcasm> There is so much wrong with this pompous declaration that I don't know where to begin. Their whole statement is a manifestation of hard hearts and enslaved minds. Do they see it? No. So who has the enslaved mind? Who has the hard heart?

Lift up thine eyes now and consider, who hath made all these things?

What Bill should do is use this as an opportunity to point out the flaw in such thinking, the self-evident contradiction in the declaration that there is no God. No one will win this argument by using any government anywhere.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31

bradbenj, "..., the

bradbenj,

"..., the self-evident contradiction in the declaration that there is no God."

I must be missing something - where is the contradiction?

(And by the way, I'm not an atheist - I'm honestly asking.)

I love Kelly but

this case, she is right on the laws as they pertain to speech and she is wrong regarding the discression of the Governor.

The agreement as they discussed does give the state government control over "time, place, and mannor" and because of that the Govenor should have told the godless that it was NOT the proper TIME and NOT the proper PLACE! Manner? Who knows? 

The godless should go pound sand.

Bill was right to call her the coward that she is. Another explaination for the Gov could be she is Godless too!

Shame shame shame!

"The fool hath said in his

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." - Ps. 14: 1

To say something in one's heart is equal to stating something is a known and verifiable fact.  Since, therefore, it would be impossible to know as a verifiable fact of the nonexistence of God, only a fool would say that "in his heart."

They can believe it all they want, but they can't legitimately state it as a fact.  Therefore those who BELIEVE there is no God are just as religious as anyone. 

http://www.go2rpi.com/video/IM3DVD/ecard2/index.html

I think Megyn is right....

...except on one point - replacing the word 'religion' with 'blacks' does not create a similar message. Bill is right in saying those would be 'fighting words.'

The message, as it is, attacks an <i>ideology</i>. If the message was directed at blacks, as Bill used as an example, it becomes an attack on <i>race</i>.

 There is a huge difference. It's comparing apples and oranges.

O'Reilly Picked The Wrong Fight

Megyn Kelly is a former prosecuting attorney and a constitutional scholar. She was right. Period.

 

rs... Not in my

rs...

Not in my view.

Period.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Bigtimer - Good argument,

Bigtimer - Good argument, well thought out. ;)

bv.... Thanks... It

bv....

Thanks...

It works for me. 

Glad to know you agree.    :-)

 "America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I love Ms Kelly

Shes great. 

I try to limit

     I try to limit my personal opinions, and comments to a maximum of one a day, but.....this subject in my home state, something I am familiar with even though I do not live there anymore, my hand is on the keyboard. When something comes on NB, and it relates to wacky Seattle, I generally see a few PNW residents make comments, that they hate what's going on there, and it doesn't apply to them. I feel their pain, and I know of what they are talking about.

      There are a lot of good people in Washington state, most of my close friends, but I have spent a good part of my lifetime trying to figure what has turned the western side of the state into a San Francisco north and of course Seattle , my hometown, where I was raised and educated, lived most of my life, I am a complete outsider because of my conservatism and just about everything else, except Husky football.

     The Governor is a Roman Catholic that graduated from Gonzaga, She had a photo op just recently in front of my alma mater, which is a suburb of Olympia, which is a Catholic Monastery and small Universsity, and she is behind this atheist display at the state capitol in Olympia.

      I have commented before on N B about people in Government today, like Pelosi, Biden and others, that put up this front they are Catholics, all the time condoning the murding of babies. The church needs to have a louder voice against this kind of crap, and I sure hope my alma mater is taking notes about what's going on at the capitol, about 6 miles away, and keeps Gregoire out of the pictures in the alumni news that I get.

      The capitol in Olympia is just an extension of Seattle, and the people had a chance to vote this crud out of office just a month ago,and that tells me the biggest majority must like it. When your'e up in Seattle for a visit, ask where Freemont is, you can go and pray at the feet of Lenin, his statue is there.

Everything is upside-down these days

I'm a (struggling) Catholic, and I don't view any of those people as Catholics, let alone Christians. They're just wolves in sheep's clothing; lies, contradictions, and doublethink are their daily bread. I fear the worst enemies of Christians (be they Catholics, Baptists, etc.) are not outside, but within their very ranks.

In my opinion O'reilly is

In my opinion O'reilly is sitting in Megyn Kelly's chair.

You better break yo'self fool!

I second that opinion!

Megyn is ready for bigger and better things at Fox.

She's smart as a whip and doesn't put up with nonsense from anyone, blathering guests (that dumba** Obama talking-point head monkey boy) nor Big Shot Fox Host and Chief Bloviator.

Go Megyn!

 

Po' Billo...he got his spankin' & wanted more!

A very bright intelligent attorney and a Murdoch-hated, washed up Ted Baxter "News Anchor" go toe to toe over the first amendment, who wins?

NOT THE ONE YELLIN', STOMPIN' HIS FEET, HUFFIN' AND PUFFIN' LIKE AN ENRAGED BULL ABOUT TO BE CASTRATED...

She crushed him!

Rupert must give her raise and her own show...Bye, Bye Billo!

As for the Sign, it seems someone decided to censor free speech and steal the sign..."What sign?!?

Hey did anyone check out this report on the Blue Angels tryouts in Fla.?

 

Blue

You talkin' to me?

Blue

The people who stole that sign should have placed it in a mosque.

I don't think the aetheists would have have the guts to claim it.

And that article about the Blue Angels - are you kidding?

Either you believe the Onion is a factual source, or you think we do.

Tell your buddies at the Huffington Post that you infiltrated our site and fought a brave, brave fight.

Troll along now.

 

deleted

deleted

O'Reilly just can't get it

O'Reilly just can't get it through his populist little mind that there is such thing as a Constitution that prevents some things from going through, just because he wants them to go through. Having said that, I think this should be the death knell for holiday religious displays on government property - it just isn't worth the crap that goes with it. On the other hand, these obnoxious atheists are too stupid and dogmatic to understand that bile like this sign does their "cause" more harm than good - why is it a "cause" with them, anyway? Why do they feel it necessary to proselytize non-belief?

Islamic Academy of Virginia, Richmond, VA

Fairfax County head of the Board of Supervisors Gerry Connolly (Democrat), approved the Islamic School on Fairfax County owned ground, along with a unanimous vote of the Democrat controlled School Board.

Gerry Conolly was elected Congressman, 11th Congressional District.

"I bring a passion for progressive values, and an ethic of getting things done.  I want to bring that same ethic -- the expectation that government will work for its citizens -- to the United States Congress."

-- Gerry Connolly

Text books at this Islamic school (on government owned property) include:
------------------------------------------
The authors of a 12th-grade text on Quranic interpretation state that apostates (those who convert from Islam), adulterers and people who murder Muslims can be permissibly killed.

The authors of a 12th-grade text on monotheism write that "(m)ajor polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible," meaning that a Muslim can take with impunity the life and property of someone believed guilty of polytheism. According to the panel, the strict Saudi interpretation of polytheism includes Shiite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.

A social studies text offers the view that Jews were responsible for the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims: "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims)."

-------------------------------

There seems to be NO 'Separation of Church and State' with 'Progressive Democrats' towards any group except Christians?

Categories of Atheists

 I was raised in a family of Atheists that went back at least three generations before me. I met many other Atheists and all Atheists fall into general categories or a combination of these categories:

1) Angry Atheists - those who either consciously or sub-consciously blame God for personal tragedies or human tragedy in general (death, wars, suffering, hunger etc.) which is proof positive to them that there is NO God.

2) Amused Atheists - those who consider themselves 'Enlightened' and transcend other humans who exhibit 'Faith' and consider them simpletons, while considering themselves intellectually and morally superior.

3) Behavioral Atheists - a prime example are homosexuals, who find themselves in contradiction to natural law and blame their deviancy on God or anything other than chosen behaviour.

4) 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' Atheists - those that hold something is false only because it hasn't been proved true (God), or that something is true only because it has not been proved false (Big Bang).

5) Atheistic Contrarians - those humans who are always against anything that is commonly held, if 99% of humans were Atheists - they would believe in God.

6) Marxist Atheists et al - those who believe that Government by humans and for humans, must have the highest allegiance and anything else (God) must be secondary and therefore inferior or non-existent by definition.

7) Amoralistic Egoism or 'Individualist Atheist' - those who believe their freedom to do anything 'freely chosen', supersedes any guideline, creed, commandments or moral restrictions, placed on them by God.

8) Narcissistic Atheists - those who believe that anything they do not know or are capable of knowing is therefore false and patently intellectually dishonest.

Atheists generally use ridicule, or 'ad hominem attacks' (religious behavior) to refute any ideas posited against them, which actually gives credence to those ideas, because the attackers have NO real answers or refutations.

Atheist free since 1972

Great post!!! The Left

Retired Geek, ..., or

Retired Geek,

..., or that something is true only because it has not been proved false (Big Bang)

Last time I checked, "Big Bang" was a scientific theory which means it isn't capable of being proven true. It's a theory that seems to be supported (indirectly) by empirical evidence.

My point is that if you're going to use Big Bang theory as an example, don't you have to pretty much include all scientific theories that haven't been falsified?

Hydrowhatsis

Fancy meeting you here! Missed you on the NYT thread. Stop flirting with Retired Geek and sashay back home to read my response. But first, "A scientific theory which means it isn't capable of being proven true"
I suggest you look up 'theory' in the dictionary.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, Most

choselife3x,

Most scientific theories use inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning isn't truth preserving (in the way that deduction is), so scientific theories can't be "proven".

This has been known for a couple hundred years. I suggest you read an introductory book on the philosophy of science.

So no scientific theories have been 'proven'?

Wow. Yeah, now I think you're stupid.
So much for Galileo, Newton, Einstein....poor b@stards.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, Newton's law

choselife3x,

Newton's law of gravity was the accepted theory of gravity for a couple hundred years. It was replaced by Einstein's which is now the accepted theory. In time, it will be modified or replaced with something new (probably some version of quantum gravity).

If Newton's law of gravity was "proven", how is it that it was replaced with a better theory? And if Einstein's theory is "proven", how is it that it has its problems and will no doubt be replaced (or at least significantly altered) in the future?

Look up "Problem of Induction" and then get back to me.

You seem to make a habit of calling people who don't agree with you "stupid". I think I went through a phase like that back when I was nine years old.

But please. Specifically address the points in my post (something you have yet to do tonight) and explain to me just how stupid I am.

'How stupid you are'

Just enough to become tiresome. Though personally I find it is your habit of taking yourself so seriously that is most wearisome. Try to lose that before you're old enough to date.
A theory is a tested explanation of the behavior of nature.
Einstein refined Newton's theory. His work did not make Newton wrong. One can always come up with more tests. Newton's basic laws still stand.
Proven enough for me. You however, are free to jump off a high-rise and draw your own conclusions.
P.S. You are the only person I've ever referred to as stupid. Don't make generalisations like that, makes you look stupid.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, Yes,

choselife3x,

Yes, scientific theories use empirical evidence as a test. That still doesn't prove them. Empirical evidence can only support or refute scientific theories. 

You can keep saying I'm wrong if you want, but what I'm saying isn't some crack-pot idea of mine. Honestly, pick up any - any - intro book on the philosophy of science. I'll even suggest a couple for you if you'd like.

No, Einstein's theory of General Relativity didn't "refine" Newton's theory. It replaced it with a completely different one. Newton's theory involved "action at a distance" as the basis for the force of gravity. Einstein's theory attributes it to the interaction between energy and spacetime. In the limit of small mass (or energy) and speeds smaller than the speed of light, the two theories give almost the same results.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you start talking about it. You wouldn't look so foolish.

And if you recall, my conversation with you got started because you suggested atheists where stupid.

Care to apologize about that last comment of yours?

You inferred from an evolution joke

That I thought they were. WERE. Drop the H.
You made an incorrect assumption and went on the attack. I responded good-humoredly and you kept trying to whip up a storm. I think the post above deals with atheism well enough that I will not waste any more time on the subject.
As far as physics goes, you are nit-picking. Go boil water and watch it change into gaseous form. What are the odds?!

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, You made

choselife3x,

You made an incorrect assumption...

Your posts say otherwise. And my first post to you was hardly an "attack". As for me trying to "whip up a storm" - it's called having a conversation. If you don't want to have your views challenged, don't post here.

I'm not sure which "post above" you are referring to since as far as I can tell, you've tried to address science (poorly, I might add) but you haven't really talked specifically about atheism or addressed my counter arguments (in this thread or the other).

Regarding science - tell me where I'm wrong. Back up your accusation that I'm stupid when it comes to this subject. Instead of saying I'm "nit-picking", tell me where my argument is flawed or just admit you don't know anything about science and leave it at that.

And by the way - it's generally acknowledged that attacking someone for their typos is the equivalent of saying "I have no real response".

Do you need such detailed explanations of everything?!

Making a parody of the 'tree falling in the forest' joke is not 'expressing a view'.
By 'nit-picking' I meant that while Newton may not have been correct about the cause of a particular law, his conclusion on its effects were not.
By post above I meant the dissection of the different types of atheism (by Retired Geek, I believe).
When a person talks like a textbook while making simple spelling errors (their/they're, where/were) not typos, (typo means you hit the wrong key) it makes me question their actual level of education as opposed to what they are putting out there. All I'm saying.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, What

choselife3x,

What specifically in my post is a parody of the "tree falling the forest"? And you are correct - when it comes to this science stuff, I'm not expressing a "view" - I telling you what has been know for decades. And yes. Science does go into details. That's why it's kind of a tough field to work in.

Yet again, your ignorance of science is on display. No, Newton's laws don't give the same results as Einstein's on gravity's "effects". The fact that they don't give the same results for certain things (like the precession of Mercury's orbit or the bending of light around large objects) is exactly why Einstein's theory replaced Newton's.

I'm begging you. Please. Stop trying to tell me about science. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

If my grammatical errors cause you to question my level of education and what I'm putting out there, then where am I getting this stuff? Are you suggesting that I'm just grabbing all of this from some online source or text?

OK, let's assume that I'm a 14 year old kid who is just looking all this stuff up. Well, considering that you haven't shown a single thing I've said to be wrong, that would mean you've been outwitted by a teenager.

Is that better?

Hydro and Chooselife

Wow, you two have gone off on a tangent. Either one of you can tell me to butt out if you wish.

Chooselife, it is well established around here that Hydro's science credentials are beyond reproach. Hydro made a point about the "big bang" theory being no different than any other theory. It is true that theories are not proven scientifically to a point of 100% inerrant. The reason is the set of standards that science hold itself to, (something that the AGW alarmists don't do I might add).

The fact of the matter is that the existence of God can never be proven in human terms. That is God's way. If we had proof, then it wouldn't be Faith. Believers know the "Truth" because it has been given to us by God. To prove His existence scientifically beyond a doubt would defeat His purpose.  

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

RESTLESS 1, Your view on

RESTLESS 1,

Your view on faith is in perfect agreement with my own. And I couldn't have said it better.

When I hear or read folks trying to prove their faith (particularly when they try to use scientific sounding arguments), I can't help but think that trying to do so cheapens the beauty of what faith is about.

(And thanks for vouching for me, by the way).

Show me the post

Where I 'tried to prove ANY faith' with ANY scientific arguments! Total BS on your part there.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, Show me

choselife3x,

Show me where I said that YOU tried to prove faith with scientific arguments.

I didn't.

See - we both can misinterpret what someone says.

Or should I accuse you of purposefully twisting my words?

GOD HELP YOUR SPOUSE

(if you have one)
Go look up 'passive aggressive' in the dictionary.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, And good

choselife3x,

And good luck to your husband - being married to a woman who seems completely incapable of admitting when they are wrong about something.

Oh, I was wrong all right

When I thought you were talking about reality as opposed to the heady realms of the abstract you dwell in. I'll 'admit' I'm wrong when I watch you amble through a brick wall. Bosons be d@mned.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

And the answer is no, you

And the answer is no, you CANNOT be my buddy.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

No prob Hydro

Chooselife is new here, and I don't think she has been privy to your more scientific oriented posts. I just thought she should know. I have enjoyed her posts in the past as well as yours, so I hope neither one of you will take offense at my butting in. 

On the other hand, this tiff between you two certainly blows the leftist theory that conservatives think in lockstep clean out of the water.  

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

this started on the NYT thread

And blew up from there. Hydro seems to take everything very seriously.
I was in a car accident once and that sure 'proved' the hell out of that whole "two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time" thing for me. ;-)
Hydro is much more abstract than I.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

I get your point Chooselife

and I get Hydro's as well. I'm just saying that calling Hydro stupid, or ignorant in terms of science, ain't gonna get you very far. 

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

choselife3x, Well, at the

choselife3x,

Well, at the atomic level, some types of particles can, in a sense, occupy the same space at the same time. (They are called bosons, if you care.)

So I guess that rule isn't proven.

sigh

Read posts again. You said I expressed a view that atheists are stupid. I responded that the original post you drew that assumption from was my parody of a 'tree falling in the forest' joke. Which was not expressing a view.
You wilfully misunderstand and twist my words into something I didn't even THINK, much less say, and then challenge me to refute your fallacious supposition.
You misquoted me on Newton. I was quoting you. Go back and read more carefully. Or don't. You could just jump....forget it.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

choselife3x, Yup, you are

choselife3x,

Yup, you are correct. I totally misread the meaning of your first sentence... and your second one.

It's late and my concentration is slipping.

However, reading that second sentence again...

By 'nit-picking' I meant that while Newton may not have been correct
about the cause of a particular law, his conclusion on its effects were
not.

I have to admit that I have no idea what you are trying to say. I mistakenly thought you meant "... were not incorrect." Help me out here. You're saying that Newton was wrong about both the origin of gravity and wrong about its predicted effects? I know that can't be right, since in a previous post, you wrote "Newton's basic laws still stand." (which is incorrect)

By the way, Newton never really postulated an origin or "cause" to gravity. It was simply an "action at a distance" which didn't sit well with many scientist at the time and for decades after.

You want to accuse me of purposefully misquoting you. Then explain to me how I could possibly hope to get way with that when everything you type is right there to see. It was a mistake on my part. Sometimes the simple explanation is the right one.

Sigh---

Choselife 3x--you don't know science  (I don't either)

Hydro-- you don't know religion, (I don't either.)

 

I do know this--Einstein was wrong, Newton was right. How do I know?? A non-existent God told me so!!!!

Hopefully that will close the issue.

misterbill, That's good

misterbill,

That's good enough for me :)

hi meesterbill

  : )

sent you a buddy request      

----- Radical  Liberal

help, help

went to my account clicked on accept--It went off into outer space and when I reentered my account--not a trace of it.

Any ideas???

misterbill

  weird it still shows as pending on my page

i lost all my friends when my account was reset a week ago

plus i'm now a newbie      

----- Radical  Liberal

Hehe...

I celebrated my 1/2 year anniversary with NB a short time ago. And now you are a noobie, LOL! You were the first to write me a PM! and it was about a misunderstanding with another NBer if I remember right. Haha, noobie! :) Just pickin' at "cha botg! Have the guys get yer NB creds back right! 

Uncle Gary

"Bri is with Jesus now, we will meet again, just not right now. We love you Bri!"

oldest noob in the west

that would be me ;^ )

sent you a new buddy request i lost all my friends too.

----- Radical  Liberal

hay misterbill, as posters here when Pluto was a planet

I Always find hydros science very educational, he is always on top of it.

Newton was right, once, a long time a ago...

In 2006 the sun was heating up the solar system... Now the sun is fading and we are in for some really cold weather.

Einstein's E= mc 2, will be delivered to us via Iran.

How do i know this, America is not a player in the final days.

And i agree with you  , C3X  is mostly a science free person.

Do not take it personally c3x

 

FREEDOM

(D)

 

hydro

   check PM     

----- Radical  Liberal

botg, ditto

botg,

ditto

Don't misspell 'generalisations', makes you look stupid

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

How come people are fine to accept Newton's Theory of gravity, but can't bring themselves to accept Darwin's Theory of evolution?  They follow the same scientific method.  Creationism or Intelligent design cannot be tested and are not taken to be credible science.

→ Generalisations

I thought it just made him look British.

Something wrong with using a British variant of our spelling?

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

um... no they don't

First of all gravity is a law, not a theory.  Scientific method progresses from hypothesis, to theory, to law based on continued testing and provenance.  Gravity is "provable" based on empirical data from observation and experimentation.  Scientists can mathematically predict how two objects will interact with each other knowing the objects mass and the distance between those two objects.  It has been tested time and again with both large and small objects.

Darwin's theory is more hypotheses or a means to explain what is for the most part, unexplainable when discounting the existence of God.  Supporting data has been gathered and in many ways makes sense in explaining why some animals are more prone to survival than others.  But to prove evolution, scientists will have to chronicle and catalog changing species for thousands, if not millions of years. 

katainkent, Actually,

katainkent,

Actually, gravity is just a name used to describe what causes objects with mass (or energy) to attract one another.

Humans have come up with models to describe this phenomenon. Newton had his "law" of gravity. Einstein had is "theory" of General Relativity.

Scientific models do not "progress" from hypothesis, to theory, to law, as you suggest. That's a pretty common misconception. If that was the case, then how could Einstein's "theory" replace Newton's "law"?

Whether a scientific model ends up with the name "theory" or "law" is more a matter of history than some kind of progression. Philosophers tend to worry about the distinction between "model", "theory" and "law" more than actual scientists do.

In physics, you can maybe say that a law is just the mathematical statements that help to predict or describe some phenomena. A theory is a set of laws along with an explanation of what they mean. But many folks who think about this stuff would disagree with that kind of simple explanation. And it's difficult to see how to apply this kind of definition to other areas of science that aren't as equation heavy as physics.

And as I've mentioned in this thread, theories that use induction (like scientific theories) can't be "proven" by empirical evidence.

*pops umbrella*

a hail of semantics!

perhaps you could condense your point to one sentence.

"part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of [government enforced] responsibility" - B. Obama

katainkent, OK. Your

katainkent,

OK.

Your assertion that scientific models progress from hypothesis to theory to law is wrong.

How's that?

 objects with mass attact

 objects with mass attact each other?

i thought the laws of physics were generally more weighty than theories?       

----- Radical  Liberal

i keep getting pulled in

i keep getting pulled in but i must away  

escape velocity now #1!!!   

----- B's theory of NB gravity

botg, I know exactly what

botg,

I know exactly what you mean. I have ton of stuff to do today and yet...

...I can't seem to get away from my computer.

botg, My point is that

botg,

My point is that the scientists don't really spend too much time trying to make the distinction between "law" and "theory" precise or universal.

I would find it tough to argue that Einstein's "Theory of General Relativity" is somehow less "weighty" than Newton's "Law of Gravity".

Those labels just happen to be the ones they got historically.

chronic, stupidity mayby

 

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a
hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations
or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by
detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory;
he can only create a hypothesis. 

Not even close, no law, and as a person/scientist I may have a theory all my own, good grief.

How come people are fine to accept Newton's Theory of gravity, but
can't bring themselves to accept Darwin's Theory of evolution?

You cant be asking this in honesty right. OK well assuming you are. Throw up a ball, does it come back down? Now show me the missing link between me and the Apes.

Fish to equale Bears?

We have fossels millions of years old, where are the Dogs and Cats?

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

general company, You

general company,

You say:

Throw up a ball, does it come back down? Now show me the missing link between me and the Apes.

I think you are failing to distinguish between the empirical evidence that serves as the basis and test for a theory and the theory itself.

No one disputes that objects released near the surface of the Earth accelerate toward the Earth. But I can come up with a completely wrong theory to explain that phenomenon.

chronic, You say "One

chronic,

You say "One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis." I'm pretty sure that isn't true. Maybe you could elaborate.

Just because two theories are developed using the "scientific method" (which is something of a bogus explanation of how real science works), that doesn't automatically make them acceptable. History is filled with scientific theories that ended up being thrown out.

But I do agree that Creationism and ID are non-testable - they incorporate supernatural agents which, by definition, have properties that can't be explained empirically.

hydro

ID incorporates supernatural agents??  that is a strawman      

----- Radical  Liberal

botg, We talked about

botg,

We talked about this once before.

If you want to continue it, I'll be more than happy to.

no time now hydro

  but i think if people read through the discussion they can draw their conclusions.

(btw it's not IFF Newton is true does.... it is IFF objects fall can Newton be correct)      

----- Radical  Liberal

botg, Fair enough.

botg,

Fair enough.

Good evening Hydro

Thank you for your posts. Most of the information you present in them was not known nor taught when I was in school. You nave caused me to research what I never learned and relearn what I have forgotten.

I would like to say to you that your differences with choselife stem from the fact that you are dealing with issues from a totally logical view and she is dealing with them from a totally emotional view.

In 42 years of marriage my wife and I never did resolve why we viewed things differently. Fortunately we knew why we did.

God bless

Thanks cocodrie, I

Thanks cocodrie,

I appreciate your comment.

Most folks outside of science don't really understand what it's about. And it isn't their fault, really. People are inundated with cartoon views of scientists and what they do in movies, print and on TV. And scientists don't make much of an effort to explain what they do (which is a topic that comes up within science education circles all the time).

The last science class most people took was in high school and high school teaches simply don't have the time to talk about how science really works or about its philosophical aspects.

My issue with choselife wasn't her emotional view - it was her "you're an idiot" attitude.

Hydro

Glad you took it that way. The "you're an idiot" attitude is directly from the emotional. Wish I had a nickle for every time my wife told me "you're an idiot".

I graduated high school in '57 and I believe we learned more about science then as compared to today. One important thing we learned was to look up unknown information in the dictionary and encyclopedia.

cocodrie, I don't doubt

cocodrie,

I don't doubt that you learned more about science then as compared today.

In grad school (not that long ago), we had to pass a "comprehensive exam" to continue with our studies. We had access to exams going back to the '50s. And let me tell you, those earlier exams were a lot tougher than the ones we had to take.

It honestly made me feel a little stupid (although, at the time, when I was worried about passing the darn thing, I was kinda grateful for it).

Hmm...

I'm a newsbusters fan, as well as a McCain-voting, NRA life-member, Federalist Society card-carrying atheist. Where do I fit in on the list?

Well...

I speak for myself, and probably many NB'ers,  I hope you find Jesus, but even if you don't, we still love you and hope the best for you. I don't want to be offensive per your beliefs, so I apologize if the above statement did so. Welcome to our fun blog, it gets interesting to say the least at times. You're free to be an atheist if you like, I would love for me or another to change that, but, that's a different thing... BTW... you didn't just happen. Someone made you, get my point. That's another post. Welcome Legacy, blog on... And I, on my own, will pray you will one day understand our faith.  You don't have to accept it, but I will try anyway, no offence, just me being me. Welcome to NB! It's addictive!!!!

 "Bri is with Jesus now, we will meet again, just not right now. We love you Bri!"

O'Reilly's position

is not necessarily invalid but it's foundation was primarly emotional and Megyn smoked it IMO.

Her parents should be very proud.

So if Sarah Palin needed an AG in 2012?

 

O'Reilly and Kelly cage match!

These are two intelligent, thoughful and passionate people, and I think that they both made good points in defending their opinions.

Bill comes at this insane issue from the standpoint of appropriateness, and Megyn comes at it from a legal direction. Like it or not, as much as I sympathize with Bill's perspective (which basically I agree with), I think that Megyn is correct from a legal stance. Christine Gregoire is a moron who never should have said okay to allowing pretty much every nutcase group with an axe to grind or wacko viewpoint to espouse, a venue to display their nonsense. Like Bill said, she should have said no to the atheists, and let it get sorted out in court. But she chickened out, and caved, and now she's allowed the whole issue to degenerate into a circus.

I wonder how many of the voters in Washington, who for some ridiculous reason just re-elected Gregoire, are experiencing "buyer's remorse?"  

"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981

Prairie Sky

I am no big O'Reilly fan, in one sense, but I do watch him 3 or 4times a week. No matter which side one comes down on, (Megyn was more logical and legally oriented), one must admit that BOR does bring up and defend American traditions. His emotions may be overboard, but by God, there are so few media folks who defend the old ways, I give BOR a pass on this and other issues like it.

Personally, I do not like what the atheist fellow is doing and I agreed with Megyn that if the governor was really wise, she would have shrewdly had the sign placed on the other side,  not right next to  the religious one.

 

someone stole the plaque today

it showed up at a local country radio station tonight. lol

Sorry Bill, but Megyn owned your butt.

 

"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"

There's Some Anti-Secular Bigotry Goin' On

To paraphrase Sly and the Family Stone, "There's some anti-secular bigotry goin' on!"

I bet anyone that secularists like me are defamed far more in public than Christians, Jews, Muslims, even Scientologists. Many of us can be conservative (I hold conservative views on government spending and our defenses nationally and abroad.) Does that necessarily mean that we're not conservative enough?

I was turned off by the McCain campaign when they began running radio ads attacking my kind. Specifically, it was about how the so-called secular left was waging war on Christmas. That pretty much ended any consideration I had at voting for McCain, and I really had considered voting for him based on defense issues and bipartisanship. But he lost me by attacking my beliefs. And the Republican coalition is going to keep losing more people like me because they are just about the most bigoted people towards my beliefs than even what most of the so-called left does in attacking Christianity. They attack specifically these Christian groups, like Focus On The Family, because those very groups attack my kind. One of us has to stop, and I believe it should be these groups that engage in anti-secular bigotry.

This is my problem with the

This is my problem with the impending Chritmas season. Living near Sodom and Gonorrhea (aka SF Bay Area), I always get this guilt feeling of pure hypocrisy whenever Christmas music is being played over the airwaves.  I mean Christianity is constantly being targeted around here almost year round, yet the Christmas season comes and they play (almost to a mockery) some of the world's best solemn songs about Christ's birth.  It's just not right IMHO.  Frankly I don't care about atheism or agnosticism, just don't get that crap in my face (as in gay issues or what not).

Starting down a slippery slope

This sign has opened WA State up to some seriously sad possibilities in the future.  If Atheists are allowed to use their freedom of speech to attack releigion I forsee Neo Nazi groups or even the KKK putting up a sign attacking Martin Luther King on MLK day.  The state will be hard pressed to ban this from happening as they would open themselves up for lawsuits.  They could be sued by say the KKK for violating their right to free speech and if they claim that they stopped the KKK because it was hate speech then Church gropus that are offended by this attack could sue claiming that they were not offered the same protection from hate speech.  This is going to end badly for WA State. 

And per the constitution...

 ...they'll have every right.  The consitution protects people from the government, not from each other.  If a neo-nazi or a Klansman have the audacity to put up a sign attacking MLK on his holiday, they will have to face the consequences of the citizens &  they know this.  The government should never supress speech, no matter how vile it might be.

Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration

http://www.despair.com/government.html

Thanks

I was "saved" or "born again" at a church in Fredericksburg, VA many years ago. Attended a very strict Protestant Christian School for 5 years. Taught Bible studies at my house. Active in Youth Group. I witnessed to others, "Romans Road" and all that good stuff.

A few years back, I left it all behind and have never been happier. No drama connected, no life-changing event, nothing like that. Just a change in beliefs on my own part. Christianity and Conservatism don't have to go hand-in-hand. Just ask my fellow atheist/agnostic, George Will.

 

Megyn was exactly correct

Megyn was exactly correct in her assessment of it not being governments job to regulate free speech or deem what's appropriate or not.

While I completely disagree with these athiests, it would be very dangerous and a slippery slope for the government to decide what's acceptable speech and what isn't.