Waching daily Oct 31 2017

On the 23rd of April, 2007, Bill O'Reilly, on his show, The O'Reilly Factor, Interviewed

Richard Dawkins, and within just four minutes he committed over 7 logical fallacies and

made the infamous assertion that he knows that his god exists because 'it's true

for him'.

"Well, it's true for me!"

Now, while I'm late to this party, I always knew that one day I'd have to comment on

it, because within it, O'Reilly was so pathetic that he made even the most exaggerated comedic

representations of his creed seem mild – such as this hilarious one: "Several million

years for a monkey to turn into a man?

Oh wait, that's right, monkeys don't live several million years!"

Haha…

Without further ado, this, is It's True For Me – Debunked.

"In the personal story segment tonight, do you believe in God?

Increasingly fewer Americans do."

"According to a Zuckerman study, in Sweden as many as 85% of the population are nonbelievers,

Japan 65%, France 54%, and in Britain 44% do not believe in God – in Great Brittan!"

"Wow."

"With us now is a man who understands that position, Richard Dawkins, the author of the

mega-selling book, The God Delusion."

You lucky you git, Billy, I got to shake his hand earlier this month at the Hammersmith

Theatre, but you got to interview him!

"I think it takes more faith to be like you, an atheist, than like me, a believer,

and it's because of nature."

Sigh… and so here's where it begins – with literally his first sentence to Dawkins – this

is either an Equivocation Fallacy, or it's utterly disingenuous.

He's either equivocating a colloquial definition of the word 'faith' (that being one that's

a synonym of 'trust') with the religious definition of 'faith' (which is belief

without sufficient evidence, and often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary);

or, he's implicitly asserting that atheists have faith that his god does not exist in

the same way that he has faith that his god does exist, which is patently absurd, and

simply not true…

"You know, I just don't think we could have lucked out to have the tides come in,

the tides go out, the sun go up, the sun go down.

Don't think it could have happened."

And O'Reilly's second sentence to Dawkins is a perfect Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Reworded, he's asserting that because he doesn't personally understand tidal theory

and heliocentrism (the tides go in, the tides go out, never a miscommunication.

You, can't explain that!), both of these well-established scientific theories must

be wrong… which is just… pathetic!

Or, as Dawkins puts it: "We have a very full understanding of why the tides go in

and the tides go out, about why the continents drift about, of why life is there, science

is ever more piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding."

"But it had to get there, I understand that, you know, the, uh, physiology of it, if you

will, but it had to come from somewhere.

And that is the leap of faith that you guys make.

That it just happened."

"That is just happened."

And O'Reilly's third sentence to Dawkins is a damn Strawman Fallacy.

He's deliberately misrepresenting atheism in order to make it easier to attack.

The truth of the matter is that because atheism only pertains to one position in relation

to one question, atheists do not necessarily share anything else in common – and this

includes their thoughts regarding the origin of the universe.

And as for the atheists that go under the banners of New Atheism, secularism, and humanism,

they too don't believe that 'it just happened'.

While they acknowledge the process of accretion for the formation of the planet, and the process

of natural selection for the diversity of life, when it comes to the question of where

exactly everything came from, their answer is 'we don't know', because, we don't

know, and unlike the religious, we're not going to pretend that we do!

"A leap of faith?

You don't actually need a leap of faith, you're the one who needs a leap of faith,

because you are actually, the onus is on you to say why you believe in something."

Yeah, you tell him Dawkins, the Burden of Proof is on him – because he is the one

making the assertion!

"There's an infinite number of gods you could believe in – I take it you don't

believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor, you believe in presumably the…"

"Jesus!

Jesus was a real guy, I could see him.

You know, I know what he did, and so, I'm not positive that Jesus is god, but I'm

throwing in with Jesus rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't

tell me how it all got here.

You guys don't know!"

"We're working on it."

"Well when you get it, then maybe I'll listen."

… Honestly, this really is borderline comical, isn't it?

I mean, is O'Reilly really this stupid?

By saying that his neutral position is to believe that Jesus is god until someone can

prove that Jesus is not god, he's both attempted to Shift the Burden of Proof and he's made

a subtle Argument from Ignorance…

In essence, he's asserted that 'we don't know X (which in this case is the origin of

the universe), therefore Y (which in this case is his very specific interpretation of

his very specific god).

It's pathetic, and it's the equivalent of Dawkins asserting that Zeus is god because

'you guys can't tell me how it all got here.

You guys don't know!'

"Well, no, I mean, if you look at the history of science over the centuries, the amount

that's gained in knowledge each century is stupendous.

In the beginning of the 21st century, we don't know everything, we have to be humble, we

have to, in humility's sake, say that there's a lot that we still don't know."

"You know, being humble is a Christian virtue?"

Haha, you should give it a go some time, Billy.

"Alright, well when you guys figure it out, you come back here and tell me, because until

that time, I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman Catholicism

because it helps me as a person."

"Oh, that's different, if it helps you as a person that's great, but it doesn't

mean it's true."

"Well, it's true for me.

True for me."

And this, ladies and gentleman, brings us to the crux of this video – the assertion

that O'Reilly's god exists because it's true for him – "It's true for me."

Now, before I take on this claim, it should be said that most of those who utter these

words do so as a form of rhetoric – they're not really asserting that their god exists

because it's true for them, but rather, they're simply conveying they're convinced

that their god exists, albeit in an irritatingly vague way.

But in the case of those who mean it literally, such as O'Reilly, I honestly think that

the conversation is over, and that the appropriate response as a society is to ridicule such

people.

To put it bluntly, it simply has to become deeply embarrassing to make such a vacuous

argument… and do you know what?

In pretty much every other domain of discourse, it is!

For example, if I was to seriously tell you that the United States was responsible for

the collapse of the Roman Empire because it's true for me, you'd laugh in my face… and

so you should!

Sometimes ridicule is the answer.

But to adequately address the underlining essence of this assertion, something is either

true or it is not, and this is the case independent of our being here to witness it.

All of science contests to this.

The idea that there are as many realities as there are beings to interpret reality is

bollocks!

It's utterly unfounded, and it's often the result of a disingenuous semantic black

hole.

It's the position taken by people on their last legs – it's a last resort.

Or as Dawkins graciously puts it: "You mean that true for you is different from true for

anybody else?

How can something be true for you?

Something's got to be true or not."

"No, no, I can't prove to you that Jesus is god, and so that truth is mine, and mine

alone, but you can't prove to me that Jesus is not, so you have to stay in your little…"

"You can't prove that Zeus is not."

And here we have another attempt from O'Reilly to Shift the Burden of Proof.

He's straight-up telling Dawkins that unless he can prove that Jesus is not god, then Jesus

is god.

Honestly, this is absurd!

How on earth is this man respected as a news presenter?

"Now, we also differ in a sense that you feel that religion has been a bane (b, a,

n, e) to civilisation, and I feel atheism has."

Oh… here we go…

"And I will point to the worst mass murders in, uh, modern times.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot – all confirmed atheists.

All people who wanted to wipe out religion."

"Now I know that you can point to the Crusades and you can point to Al Qaeda right now, it's

there and it's no question, but I say, I'm throwing in with the founding fathers of the

United States which saw religion and spirituality as a moderating influence – as a good thing

if people embrace the true tenants."

Sigh… now this is a great example of someone lighting so many fires so that their opponent

cannot possible put them all out within their time-constrained response, but to be honest,

Dawkins nevertheless did an outstanding job, and so I'm simply going to play his response

while depicting onscreen the fallacy that O'Reilly committed.

"The founding fathers of the United States were secularists above all.

Some of them were religious, some of them were not, but they were above all secularists

that believed in keeping church and state separate."

"They Had to because of the oppression in Europe."

"As for Hitler and Stalin and so on, of course, Hitler by the way was a roman Catholic."

"No, he never was.

He was raised in that home but he rejected it early on."

"We can dispute that.

Stalin was an atheist, no question, but Stalin did the bad things he did not because he was

atheist, I mean, Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, but we don't say it was their

moustaches that made them evil."

"Haha, I don't think they had any moral foundation, any of those guys."

"I don't either."

"I will say, your book is fascinating, congratulations on your success, thanks a lot for coming on

in here."

"Thank you very much indeed."

So, to recap, within just 4 minutes belligerent Billy committed an Equivocation Fallacy, a

Personal Incredulity Fallacy, a Strawman Fallacy, a Shifting of the Burden of Proof Fallacy,

an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy, another Shifting of the Burden of Proof Fallacy, a

False Cause Fallacy, and he's made one of the most pathetic arguments for the existence

of a god that I've ever heard…

"Well, it's true me!"

"That's right, monkeys don't live several million years!"

Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, an extra special thank you to my generous

patrons, and an even extra special thank you to Jared, who very kindly donated a quality

microphone and stand to the channel, and so we've got him to thank for the improvement

of my audio – on behalf of us all, cheers Jared!

For more infomation >> It's True For Me – Debunked (Bill O'Reilly Exposed) - Duration: 11:12.

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

YOU NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW FOR FIFA 18 MOVEMBER! | FIFA 18 How To Trade To 100,000 Coins #4 - Duration: 15:21.

For more infomation >> YOU NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW FOR FIFA 18 MOVEMBER! | FIFA 18 How To Trade To 100,000 Coins #4 - Duration: 15:21.

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

Eagles DT Fletcher Cox avoids suspension for block that injured 49ers' Joe Staley - Duration: 1:54.

Eagles DT Fletcher Cox avoids suspension for block that injured 49ers' Joe Staley

Eagles defensive tackle Fletcher Cox escaped a possible suspension for his block that broke 49ers tackle Joe Staleys orbital bone, NFL spokesman Joe Lockhart indicated on a Tuesday conference call.

The play in question occurred as Cox blocked Staley during Jalen Mills second-quarter pick six in the Eagles 33-10 victory.

ESPNs Adam Schefter reported Monday morning that the NFL is reviewing the play for potential discipline and possible suspension, per source.

Staley confirmed Monday morning that he suffered a fracture on the play, but he will not need surgery, via NinersNation.com.

Sacramento Bee reporter Matt Barrows said Staley said Coxs hand got inside his face mask on the block.

Staley also said his eye did not suffer any damage, and his vision is fine, Which is rare, apparently, in injuries of that nature. He is expected to play again this year, but the timetable for his return is uncertain.

Cox could still be fined for the play.

For more infomation >> Eagles DT Fletcher Cox avoids suspension for block that injured 49ers' Joe Staley - Duration: 1:54.

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

Praying for Others with Specifics - Pt 3a - Duration: 28:31.

For more infomation >> Praying for Others with Specifics - Pt 3a - Duration: 28:31.

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

The Number One Secret for Architects to Win Short List Presentations - Duration: 6:05.

- Hi.

I wanna tell you what we did

because I think it's something that if you're

an architecture firm and you ever have to get up

and present to a panel or a board

to win a major project, or even a small project,

then I'm pretty sure this will help you.

When I used to work for an IT company,

we used to do major proposals and presentations

for government departments and large corporates,

so usually in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

I went through a patch where, I think it was about seven

or eight projects that we won from presentations.

So we won eight in a row from presentations.

What would happen is we'd usually submit

some big team document or proposal document,

and then we'd be put on the shortlist.

The client would come back and say,

"Hey, Richard, you're on the short list, good.

"What we're gonna do is get the top three

"to present their solution, and from there

we'll pick a winner."

I'd be, "Great!"

And that's when I hit them with this.

I'd say, "All right, that's great.

"I've got a confession for you, and that is,

"look, IT companies are terrible at doing presentations.

"You're gonna find that out very soon

"as you go through these three presentations.

"We've got a whole lot of very clever technical people,

"but when it comes to working out what you'd need to see

"to work out whether we're a good fit for you or not,

"our guys will show you the latest clever stuff,

"technical detail, and they can drag you way off

"into the distance into an area that is interesting,

"but probably not that helpful in terms of

"working out whether we're right for you or not.

"So what I'd like to suggest is can you give me a list

"of five to seven things that you wanna see,

"and by us presenting on those five to seven things,

"you'll know whether we're right for you,

"100% right for you, or you'll know whether we're

"100% not right for you.

"Frankly, I don't mind, if we're not right for you,

"then I'd rather you know as soon as possible,

"and we'd also like to know because we don't want to waste

"any more time either if we're not right.

"If you give us the five to seven things,

"we'll present on those things,

"and then by the end of the presentation

"you'll know whether we're a good fit or not."

I'd also say, "Because what you don't want

"is to leave this meeting with us having done a presentation

"and you're still not sure.

"You don't wanna be in that situation."

And like I say, "IT companies, we do terrible presentations.

"We'll wander all over the place showing you

"all sort of clever things."

So they would go, "Oh, okay, that's a good idea, fine."

And then they'd usually go, "Well, I don't know what it is,

but can I email you something later?"

And I'd go, "Absolutely."

Then they would email me, "Here's the six things

"we wanna see," and I would take that,

and I would email it out to my team and say,

"Right, team.

"This is our agenda for the presentation.

"We'll show this stuff and this stuff only."

And that's what we would do.

And we won every single time.

We won every single time 'cause we were

probably the only IT company doing a presentation

on the stuff that was important to them.

Because I asked, right?

Because I asked.

Now the other IT companies would have been showing them

a whole lot of stuff they thought were clever,

and that they wanted to see.

But it wouldn't necessarily be a fit.

Whereas ours was perfect.

Now the other thing it does by asking that question,

is it forces the client to then think,

"What is our buying criteria?

"What do we need to see to work out

"whether company X is either 100% right for us

"or 100% not right for us?"

So by forming that list, unconsciously they're basically

putting their buying criteria on the table, giving it to us.

And we'd present on 'em.

Anyway, the only catch to it is you may say,

"Well, what if the client says that's a bit unfair,

that would be," well I had that.

I had that on one situation out of the seven or eight.

A guy said to me, it was a law firm.

When I said, "Can you tell us what you wanna see?

"So that you know that we're either perfect for you

"or we're worse than people for you,

"and that way you can make the decision."

He said, "Oh, that would be telling,"

with a smile on his face.

I thought, oh he's seen through my little plan.

But then just something came to me.

I was so pleased that it was like

a moment's clarity and inspiration.

And I said to him, "It would be unfair.

"I'll tell you what would be unfair,

"would be you walking away from this meeting

"after an hour of us presenting,

"and you still not being sure whether we can

"do the job for you or we can't.

"Or whether we're the best for you or we're not the best.

"That would be unfair."

He said, "You're right."

'Cause it is right.

And he said, "Alright, I'll send you an email."

And he sent me an email as well.

So there you go.

I can't say it's gonna work 100% of the time for you.

It certainly worked; we won every single big project

when I did this, up until the time I left.

And I think it can certainly help you get on point

and on target and make sure when you present something

to your panel or client, that you are

presenting what's important to them.

And that is massively important.

The secret to marketing is simply

find out what people want and give it to them.

The quickest way to find out what people want is ask them.

But you gotta ask them in the right way,

and you gotta justify it.

I've just shown you how to do that.

Maybe you go back over this video again,

if you like what I said, and you take some notes,

and then you use it on your next presentation.

Alright, hey, hope that helped.

I enjoyed making it for you actually.

I quite enjoyed retelling that little story

'cause it brings back happy memories.

If you want some more help from us,

press the little button down below,

and there's some more cool stuff actually, that you can get.

So click on the button below, and we look forward

to giving you some more stuff

that will help you with projects.

Alright, see you soon.

For more infomation >> The Number One Secret for Architects to Win Short List Presentations - Duration: 6:05.

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

Climate change hitting home for small US breweries - Duration: 2:03.

For more infomation >> Climate change hitting home for small US breweries - Duration: 2:03.

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

JERRY JONES ZEKE'S A VICTIM OF 'OVER-CORRECTION' For Ray Rice Suspension - Duration: 1:26.

JERRY JONES ZEKE'S A VICTIM OF 'OVER-CORRECTION' For Ray Rice Suspension

Jerry Jones says Roger Goodell is trying to redeem himself for mishandling the Ray Rice situation by going extra hard on Ezekiel Elliott ... saying the commish turned Zeke into a victim of an over-correction.

Zekes request for a preliminary injunction was denied by a U.S. District judge on Monday ... upholding his 6-game suspension.

Jones addressed the newest update with Shan & RJ on 105.3 The Fan ... saying Goodell knows he went too easy on Rice, and is now trying to appease the public by burying Zeke.

Im sure hed like to take back his initial Ray Rice stance and a few others. And hes in the process of having tried to correct that and doing so, Zeke is a victim of an over-correction.

For more infomation >> JERRY JONES ZEKE'S A VICTIM OF 'OVER-CORRECTION' For Ray Rice Suspension - Duration: 1:26.

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

Minecraft crafting for MICE presentation - Duration: 2:34.

Press e to open inventory

Get achievement

no further instructions

checking next achievement

Chop some wood

Get achievement

Make a work bench with 4 planks

planks have not been explained yet

planks crafted from wood

get achievement

make a pickaxe with planks and sticks

pickaxe must be made on crafting table

no actual recipe shape is given

player is expected to know or figure out how

sticks crafted

not enough planks for pickaxe

craft more planks

craft pickaxe shape

crafting axe to make wood cutting faster

craft a stone pickaxe (stone is not mentioned)

mining stone under the pond

get 3 pieces cobblestone for pickaxe

ignore the lama

get achievement at last

For more infomation >> Minecraft crafting for MICE presentation - Duration: 2:34.

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

Harvey Weinstein Thinks He's a Martyr for Social Change | Daily Celebrity News | Splash TV - Duration: 1:07.

Harvey Weinstein has been thanked the same amount of times as God at the Academy Awards…

so it's no wonder he might have a messiah complex.

Page Six is exclusively reporting that the disgraced producer has been telling friends

he believes he's a savior who was born to be accused of sex assault in order to change

the world.

That's right, Harvey is reportedly of the mind that he's a martyr for social change,

and that's why he's resigned to his punishment… whatever that might be.

But a rep for Weinstein says that's absurd.

82 women claim to have been sexually assaulted, raped, or molested by the media mogul and

that list dates back to the Seventies.

Harvey is currently believed to be in an Arizona rehab and his rep says that any allegations

of nonconsensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein.