Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[masterofpuppets]

1. There is no way someone can become convinced that God exists through proper examination of the available evidence coupled with the use of reason and logic in determining whether arguments for God are viable.
2. Please elaborate on your rebuttal here instead of simply claiming I don't know what I am talking about.
3. Yes, because they often do so out of social pressure, fear or a personal desire to seek out a deity (which comes down to having faith). There is no evidence to suggest that God exists; neither does proper use of reason and logic lead one to conclude that God exists.
4. Yes, and there are billions of other people who also think the existence of God has been demonstrated. My claim, however, is not that I am not convinced by the evidence. My claim is that there is no reason to be convinced that a God exists. This is also not a claim that I believe to be absolutely true. It is a claim that I believe is true with reasonable certainty. Belief in a god is not reasonable because it has not been demonstrated to be reasonable. Of course theists think it is reasonable, but that's not relevant.
5. The Biblical God gives you solutions to unanswered questions without basis, and that causes you to lose your motivation to seek the true answer.
6. Did I say all or majority? I said "so many": 42% of Christians in the United States believe in the Creationist account of human origins. By the way, common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like it or not, macroevolution is a scientific fact. Also, I never mentioned Young Earth creationists.
7. I consider Christians who do not believe in evolution, and instead Creationism, as fundamentalist Christians, so that's 42%. There's clearly a problem when 42% of Christians accept a 2000 year old collection of fabricated scribblings instead of the scientific method.

1. Sure there is. People read the NT every day and believe the authors' accounts and believe that God wants to have a relationship with them. If you are going to say that the NT is not evidence, why? 
2. You said the Christian's justification to set aside reason, evidence, and logic was "Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God." You are making up an imaginary person so you can make fun of. It is becoming clear you do not understand your opponent's positions.
3. Is that why the Chinese christian community is growing at phenomenal rates? Peer pressure? For an extreme example, try Turkey. 
4. You keep saying there is no evidence that God exists. Do you realize, you could not possibly know that? Setting that aside, I have the compelling person of Jesus, the events of the NT, I have the evidence that people whom I know have been changed from the inside by God, I have my own personal experiences, I have family who's child was cleared of brain cancer as they prepared to remove the tumor. 
5. That bullshit. Another attribute you ascribe to your imaginary straw man. Modern science started with a Christian worldview--that the universe was NOT endowed with magical mystical powers (as the rest of the world thought) but was an object that could be studied.
6. No, you did not mention YEC, you mentioned people who don't believe in evolution. Did you mean someone different? Common decent proven? LOL. How did they go do that? What would you say is the top 3 reasons common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
7. Okay, now you have moved onto Christians in a particular country--all the way from just "theists". That is not the definition of a fundamentalist christian. You are confusing a single belief that some fundamentalist hold with an entire ideology. Why do you think someone has to choose between the Bible and the scientific method. You are setting up a false dilemma--another fallacy.

1. The New Testament is not evidence because the claims made in the New Testament have not been demonstrated to be true.

2. No, Christians are making up an imaginary person who they believe in not due to reason, evidence and logic, but rather on faith alone. You wouldn't believe in such a God if you actually used those tools properly, because they shouldn't lead you to such a conclusion. If that's not the case, where is the good evidence and arguments for the existence of God? I have yet to come across such things (as I explain in 4).

3. They are growing for the reasons I already pointed out. Not necessarily peer pressure. I never claimed peer pressure is the only factor. There are even more reasons than the examples I gave, but none are good reasons, which is the point. 

4. I didn't claim to know there is no evidence, did I? I believe that no good evidence has been presented thus far. If I knew there was no evidence, I wouldn't keep requesting that Christians present it. Moreover, knowledge is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, as we are discussing reasonableness of belief. That said, the "evidence" that you presented is invalid. Saying "The Bible" doesn't count because you are presupposing that the Bible is accurate when it is actually ridden with scientific and historical inaccuracies. Personal experiences don't count either because those can't be verified and hence established as fact. I have also had all kinds of personal experiences that I could attribute to anything, but I don't because I'd need to demonstrate that such attribution is valid. "Changed from the inside by God" is essentially a fancy way of restating "personal experiences", and I won't even begin to accept your cancer story as evidence.

5. You seem to be saying "straw man" just for the sake of discrediting my argument, when it clearly isn't.

6. Fossil record, genetics and the differences in development of animal behaviour between species. I'm not going to explain this all to you; the information is out there.

7. I said I consider them as fundamentalist Christians, and with this definition my previous arguments hold water. Also, you seem to like pulling logical fallacies out of nowhere in a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. I didn't claim that those were the only two options. I said they accept the Bible's explanations instead of the scientific method, as these are the two most common approaches.