If one does not get their news from the Daily Show and biased, overly pedantic, left-wing blogs, it is very OBVIOUS that O'Reilly was talking about life on other planets. Why don't other planets have human beings or some kind of intelligent life?

He clearly asks. "Where does the sun come from? Where does the moon come from? He is a very well educated Harvard graduate who does not believe in interpreting the bible literally. He is very aware that the moon causes tides. He is asking who or what created the moon and by extension, the universe.

All of your examples of Bill O'Reilly, supposedly, "making up" things are just plain silly. This is the kind of dishonest spin that is directed at Fox news constantly and if one takes the time to examine this left-wing propoganda, they will find that most of it is nonsense.

I get tired of people of demonizing Fox because they dispute liberal dogma. If it were not for Fox, there would be no one challenging the White House narrative at all.

Every day, there is Special Report with great people on it analyzing the latest news - liberal and conservative and many that are hard to peg. On Sundays, there is Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - again, always a great panel with mixed ideologies, often with Woodward of Watergate fame.

There are also a bunch of other decent news shows like America's news HQ, America's Newsroom, Fox Newswatch, Journal Editorial Report and Studio B that largely are not liberal or conservative. They just present the news.There are a lot of other shows too, some good - O'Reilly- some (really) bad - Hannity - and some that are in between - Greta.

I am not claiming that Fox News never gets anything wrong. Sometimes they do, just like pretty much every other news organization in the world.

Fox News' take on the matter:

Liberal media miss reality in jabs at Lauren Green's interview with 'Zealot' author Aslan

By Dan Gainor

There’s nothing the left likes better than attacking Fox News. Almost all liberal media “analysis” revolves around such activity, without ever noting the outlandishly liberal biases of the traditional outlets that outnumber Fox like the Persians outnumbered the Spartans. Throw in a chance to defend Islam and bash Christians and you get to light up the Internet like a Christmas (or Solstice) tree

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/#ixzz2aaM5T3U8

This academic book is now on bestseller lists.

Thanks to Fox News idiocy.

Well done!

Another stunning display of ignorance and foot- shooting akin to the brouhaha in 2008 when Obama was photographed holding a book authored by a Muslim about the decline of America.....and similar. See below for an email that did the rounds.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/image5.png

Sadly for the muppet brigade Fareed Zakaria is a phenomenally bright guy and accomplished writer who happens to be a Muslim, and his book did not revel in the downfall of the USA, but of course that would have required these morons to actually read the book (way too big a task obviously)!

You forgot to mention plagiarism as one of Zakaria's enduring contributions to journalism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-scandal-tough-week_n_1810139.html

I thought that name sounded familiar.

This academic book is now on bestseller lists.

Thanks to Fox News idiocy.

Well done!

Another stunning display of ignorance and foot- shooting akin to the brouhaha in 2008 when Obama was photographed holding a book authored by a Muslim about the decline of America.....and similar. See below for an email that did the rounds.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/image5.png

Sadly for the muppet brigade Fareed Zakaria is a phenomenally bright guy and accomplished writer who happens to be a Muslim, and his book did not revel in the downfall of the USA, but of course that would have required these morons to actually read the book (way too big a task obviously)!

You forgot to mention plagiarism as one of Zakaria's enduring contributions to journalism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-scandal-tough-week_n_1810139.html

Thanks for clearing that up, I was thinking of Father Zakaria, he's a funny guy.

http://www.fatherzakaria.net/

If one does not get their news from the Daily Show and biased, overly pedantic, left-wing blogs, it is very OBVIOUS that O'Reilly was talking about life on other planets. Why don't other planets have human beings or some kind of intelligent life?

How does he know there is no intelligent life on other planets? Truth is, he doesn't and just made it up.

He clearly asks. "Where does the sun come from? Where does the moon come from? He is a very well educated Harvard graduate who does not believe in interpreting the bible literally. He is very aware that the moon causes tides. He is asking who or what created the moon and by extension, the universe.

Pretty poor for a "very well educated Harvard graduate" as he must MUST know that this line of reason ends in infinite regress. And... Why start at tides and what on Earth does it have to do with scams? There is no context to introduce the 'God did it' argument at the point he did.

I am not claiming that Fox News never gets anything wrong. Sometimes they do, just like pretty much every other news organization in the world.

I fully agree. The scale of these so called mistakes leaves every other news outlet that I know of dead in the water and even the most myopic can see that many of these so called mistakes are not mistakes but are intended to deceive. I would go further than you and say ALL news outlets do this to some degree but on nowhere near as massive a scale and nowhere near as brazenly. The previous Thai government (and before) were a bunch of thieves and vagabonds as is the present government but it cannot be said that they are all equal in their theft.

How does he know there is no intelligent life on other planets?

This is your argument? The guy who claimed that O'Reilly distorts the news regularly and then could not find one credible link to back it up?

The criticisms that FoxNews distorts the news are based on some naive notion that 'Cable' News Channels report 'News' during the entire broadcast day. Fox like other stations reports Hard News in News segments and does as well or better than most by not coloring or slanting or editorializing the 'news' in these 'news' segments.

All other portions of FoxNews broadcasting - the same as with CNN or ABC, CBS, etc. - have news analysis, panel discussions, interviews, news team discussions, etc. and do not pretend that what is presented is 'news'. Such 'shows' are in fact known for being opportunities for offering opinion, conjecture and opposing facts. When interviewing authors or political notables the Interviewer most often tries to draw out information and statements that counter or are in some way conflicting with the 'tailored position' of the author or the politician being interviewed. The interviewers most commonly try to (if they are skilled enough) to get the interviewee to 'slip up' and get off the talking points. This is how major TV News presentation works. Please cease with this naive notion that every word presented on a NEWS channel is news. Remember these words - opinion, conjecture, analysis, editorial statements next time you turn on the news channels.

The only exception to this is MSNBC which in a 24 hour day presents nothing but slanted propaganda designed to shore up the Obama Administration. And they are unabashed about it. But of course MSNBC's viewpoint is Liberal - Leftist - so it is Okay that they do this isn't that right folks?

How does he know there is no intelligent life on other planets?

This is your argument? The guy who claimed that O'Reilly distorts the news regularly and then could not find one credible link to back it up?

?

I'm not sure if you didn't see the link in my post dated 30/7/2013 (11:06) or if you mean that O'Reilly is not credible. I've used this example because it doesn't need complex enquiry, is not subjective and has not been contaminated by possible left-wing spin or in fact, spin of any kind. If the simplest example is denied then there is no point using a complex example. This 'method' is used in all walks of life to gain knowledge though I am happy to accept that some people are able to thrive when thrown in the deep end. One learns math before one learns physics. One learns to read before studying literature etc. etc.

If it were not for Fox, there would be no one challenging the White House narrative at all.

Whilst I am happy to fully agree with you I don't understand why Fox need to go to such extraordinary lengths to sex up their reporting to the point where it becomes intellectually offensive. They are the only news outlet that could give The Onion a run for their money. I have no question you know what The onion is but I included the link for others who may not.

The Onion is an American news satire organization. It is an entertainment newspaper and a website featuring satirical articles reporting on international, national, and local news..

[...]

The Onion's articles comment on current events, both real and fictional. It parodies traditional newspapers with stories, editorials, op-ed pieces, and man-in-the-street interviews, using a traditional newspaper layout and an editorial voice modeled after that of the Associated Press. Its humor often depends on presenting mundane, everyday events as newsworthy ("Best Buy Employee Going To Tell You What He Has At Home"). Other common themes include surreal exaggerations or puns, such as "Comic-Con Once Again Marred By Increasingly Popular Bully-Con", and contrasting media portrayals against reality by treating the fictional version as the more real ("George Zimmerman Wins Florida State Lottery’").

You don't seem to get it. You claim that O'Reilly regularly distorts the news, but offer no credible proof. You say that Fox News is fiction like The Onion, but don't offer any credible proof. All you are offering is (very biased) opinions and nothing more. Why continue to make silly claims that you can not back up?

You don't seem to get it. You claim that O'Reilly regularly distorts the news, but offer no credible proof. You say that Fox News is fiction like The Onion, but don't offer any credible proof. All you are offering is (very biased) opinions and nothing more. Why continue to make silly claims that you can not back up?

With all due respect, I have provided one example to test the water which turned out to be a good idea since you refuse to accept it. I chose this particular example because it is nothing short of 'Blatant Lie 101'. How can an entire unedited rip of the interview not be credible? How can it be biased or an opinion? Seriously, if you refuse to accept this example then there is no way you will accept any others.

Seriously, if you refuse to accept this example then there is no way you will accept any others.

In other words, like other O'Reilly bashers, all you have to offer is conjecture, nit-picking and petty inconstancies. You can't produce any credible proof.

Claiming that that O'Reilly does not know that there is not intelligent life on other planets or harping on some trivial remark about moons, in a philosophical debate about the existence of God, is hardly evidence of "out and out lies" or "making up additional material out of thin air". However, I can't say the same thing about your petty attempts to smear his reputation.

You would be hard pressed to find any news outlet which does not attempt to spin a story to at least some degree. A nip here and a tuck there even to the point where it can only be considered knowingly misleading. Fox News does this to the highest standard but even they are sometimes stumped and so resort to out and out lies. Stories which Fox finds it can not spin or manipulate often end up with Bill O'Reilly and his 'no spin zone' where additional material is inserted out of thin air (made up), in order that the story is able to be spun.

More on Reza Aslan:

Author Attacked By Fox News Is Actually Kind Of A Jerk On Twitter

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/author-attacked-by-fox-news-is-actually-kind-of-a-jerk-on-tw

In other words, like other O'Reilly bashers, all you have to offer is conjecture, nit-picking and petty inconstancies. You can't produce any credible proof.

Oh c'mon UG. My opinion is left-wing though I am from the UK? Other opinions are all left-wing and even his own words, verbatim, are in your view not credible. I'm not sure what is left really other than it didn't happen in the same way that 'act of terrorism' was not said in the rose garden the day after Benghazi. Fox News and their running mate Romney I am sure still deny it.

Claiming that that O'Reilly does not know that there is not intelligent life on other planets or harping on some trivial remark about moons, in a philosophical debate about the existence of God, is hardly evidence of "out and out lies" or "making up additional material out of thin air".

Fair point. He could have said he had an invisible leprechaun called Colin in his shed to the same applause.

Unless someone is willing to accept 'barefaced lie 101' then I leave myself open from the get go to what is commonly known as the Gish Gallop.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

I see this all too much in my field as well as in general use so please excuse me for perhaps going to far in an attempt to avoid it in this instance. However, given what you have said I consider it as having been a wise choice.

The tenuous^1{3} and spurious^2{4} link between 'tides' and 'life' are IMO facile^3{1} and again IMO opinion fallacious^4{2}

¹:

1. thin or slender in form, as a thread.

2. lacking a sound basis, as reasoning; unsubstantiated; weak: a tenuous argument.

3. thin in consistency; rare or rarefied.

4. of slight importance or significance; unsubstantial: He holds a rather tenuous position in history.

5. lacking in clarity; vague: He gave a rather tenuous account of his past life.

²

1. not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

2. Biology . (of two or more parts, plants, etc.) having a similar appearance but a different structure.

3. of illegitimate birth; bastard.

³

1

a (1) : easily accomplished or attained <a facile victory> (2) : shallow, simplistic <I am not concerned with offering any facile solution for so complex a problem T. S. Eliot>

b : used or comprehended with ease

c : readily manifested and often lacking sincerity or depth <facile tears>

2. archaic : mild or pleasing in manner or disposition

3

a : ready, fluent <facile prose>

b : poised, assured

⁴

containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.

2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.

3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.

It seems to be YOU who is making things up from thin air. Who said anything about your opinion being "left-wing" (although you must realize that there are plenty of lefties in the UK). I said that the silly YouTube videos that you posted were from left-wing sources. They could not provide any credible evidence that O'Reilly consistently "makes up additional material out of thin air" or "out and out lies" - as YOU claimed - and neither can you. That is because, no matter how much you try to dodge and deflect and spin, it is simply not true.

Reza Aslan makes some controversial claims: about Jesus

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/30/speed-read-the-six-most-controversial-reza-aslan-claims-about-jesus.html

Reza Aslan makes some controversial claims: about Jesus

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/30/speed-read-the-six-most-controversial-reza-aslan-claims-about-jesus.html

Actually getting away from the Fox news interview Reza Aslan has more than a few question marks concerning his agenda. Of course he is the darling of the Lib-Left as he peddles the establishment mythology on Islam, however this book simply amounts to yet another equivalence argument to give Jesus some dirty laundry to compare with that of Mohammad (PBUH).

It seems to be YOU who is making things up from thin air. Who said anything about your opinion being "left-wing" (although you must realize that there are plenty of lefties in the UK). I said that the silly YouTube videos that you posted were from left-wing sources. They could not provide any credible evidence that O'Reilly consistently "makes up additional material out of thin air" or "out and out lies" - as YOU claimed - and neither can you. That is because, no matter how much you try to dodge and deflect and spin, it is simply not true.

Blaise Pascal and his Pensées:

Pascals Pensées is widely considered to be a masterpiece, and a landmark in French prose. When commenting on one particular section (Thought #72), Sainte-Beuve praised it as the finest pages in the French language. Will Durant, in his 11-volume, comprehensive The Story of Civilization series, hailed it as the most eloquent book in French prose. In Pensées, Pascal surveys several philosophical paradoxes: infinity and nothing, faith and reason, soul and matter, death and life, meaning and vanityseemingly arriving at no definitive conclusions besides humility, ignorance, and grace.

http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/book/pensees_by_blaise_pascal

He also mentioned that there are those created who could not be made to believe, those who would refuse to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary. The kind of person who you could take outside to stand in the rain in an effort to prove it is raining, yet they would still deny it was raining.

Rather than give you a plethora of Bill's lies I provided one, just a single lie. No you say, no no no no no no no you say. Left wing or not credible! Bill's own words are left wing and or are not credible according to you which leaves me in a rather awkward place I feel. I am uncomfortable accepting tentatively that 1+1=2 in addition to 1+1=3 for some reason. Perhaps I'm weird thinking it should be one or the other rather than both?

However, over the last day or so I have found a get out clause and that is that you also 'know' that there is no life outside of Earth.

What point to provide 50, 100 or 200 examples when I receive a 'la la la I can't hear you' on just the one? It's interesting to note that you have provided nothing other than 'it is not true' thus far. Cold I be wrong? No question. Am I going to be given a reason to change my view by you? I doubt it.

I feel I am wasting my time here in the same way that nailing a Tiktaalik to the head of a Creationist would be futile. I tried to keep a narrow direction (just one point for now) yet you repeatedly attempt to broaden it.

Fox News does this to the highest standard but even they are sometimes stumped and so resort to out and out lies. Stories which Fox finds it can not spin or manipulate often end up with Bill O'Reilly and his 'no spin zone' where additional material is inserted out of thin air (made up), in order that the story is able to be spun.

Still no evidence of "out and out lies" or "made up material out of thin air". One minor error in a philosophical debate - he thought that Mar's moons were still classified as asteroids - does not qualify.

O'Reilly also thought there was no explanation for tides other than a divine (read God) explanation,

so with that, the "very well educated Harvard graduate" argument went out the window,

even high school drop-outs would have picked up on basic physics.

This nonsense again. O'Reilly has a very good Harvard education and is very aware that the moon causes the tides. His point is that we do not know who or what created the universe and that he believes that it was created by a mystical being.

Nonsense yet again, i saw the video and he is clueless

When asked, right after that interview, O'Reilly said, "Where does the sun come from? Where does the moon come from." He has never denied that the moon causes tides. He denies that mankind can explain everything in the multiverse scientifically.

O'Reilly has a very good Harvard education

O'Reilly has a very good Harvard education

Laughter.gif

There is a word for it.... oxymoron.

(Signed Cambridge graduate)

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
― Euripides