http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Doublethink is a form of trained, willful intellectual blindness to contradictions in a belief system. Doublethink differs from ordinary hypocrisy in that the "doublethinking" person deliberately had to forget the contradiction between his two opposing beliefs — and then deliberately forget that he had forgotten the contradiction. He then had to forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this intentional forgetting, once begun, continues indefinitely. In the novel's notes, Orwell describes it as "controlled insanity".

If nothing else, this has an awesome doublethink vibe going for it.

>> ^Jordass:
It doesnt matter whether its true or not they will invoke the Bush tactic of looking right into the camera and say with complete seriousness that its not true and foolish to even think so, and like always saying it on TV must make it the truth so people will just take their word for it and this story will never be heard of again. Irritates the shit out of me the amnesia in this country


It's not called Amnesia, it's called doublethink. Orwell had it right when he wrote 1984:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

Doublethink The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with atheism, but when it is coupled with fundamentalist rhetoric which seeks to paint all non-atheists as one homogenous group who are inherently stupid, irrational, intolerant, and literalist in their reasoning, it too becomes problematic. When Dawkins argues that the influence of religion is only negative, that all religious people are inherently irrational

You keep saying you have read the God Delusion.. But judging from these accusations I have a hard time believing you. Large parts of TGD is spent cautiously separating literalists from moderates, statements like "Of course not all religious people are [insert from quote above]" are everywhere in that book. The main point of the book is to show how really, really unlikely a god of any kind is, not to paint anyone with anything. The atrocities committed daily because some people think they know the mind of God speaks for themselves, without Dawkins or anyone else points them out.

that all religious people are inherently irrational

If anything, he points out that Religious CLAIMS, (not people), are irrational, there is a huge difference. The problem is this: Why are perfectly ordinary rational people convinced by irrational nonsense?

, that religion and science are totally incompatible,

They are. A state of perpetual doublethink/Faith provides a satisfying solution to this problem.

and that bringing children up with religious beliefs is a form of child abuse

Indoctrinating children is child abuse. You can teach them about all religions and let them decide when they grow up.

What's so contradictory about understanding what Empirical Data means, as well as believing in something that goes beyond it?

If we assume that the theory of evolution is true, which it is, a "designer", ie ANY kind of designer is just about out of the question, its just too damn unlikely to be true. The fact that this man is also in a particular christian sect, is a remarkable example of the doublethink that goes into preserving religion.

The human species, depending a little bit on how you define homo sapiens (there is no clear "moment" when we went from "ape" to "human", because evolution is a gradual process) Has been on this planet for roughly 200 thousand years. So, for 194 thousand years, we humans stumped around in the dirt, most infants dead at birth, life expectency for the surviving minority probably less than 25 years, tribal wars, misery, starvation, sickness and natural disasters killing of people by the thousands, and then, only then, does his roman catholic God decide its time to intervene.. Obviously, this fairy-tale cooked up by people in complete ignorance, is not anywhere near true.

When it comes to deism, the view that "Something is up there", this is also laughable in light of evolution, the whole point of natural selection is that it is NATURAL, its automatic, its a self-guided process, if someone ever intervened it simply would not work the way it works, it works precisely BECAUSE there is NO "guide" to it, thats the whole beauty of it, its wasteful, mean, unsympathetic and ruthless because its tautological, Whatever happens, happens, and if some god poked his finger in there to "help it along", those fingers would either 1. Work as sticks in wheels, or 2.leave a trace, none of which is true

I've always wondered:
O'Reily; ultra conservative, mega spin doctor or practiced-doublethinker.