Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[masterofpuppets]

How is it circular? Does it follow that the claims not having been demonstrated to be true is a consequence of the NT not being evidence? Of course not, you would need to replace "NT not being evidence" with "NT has no evidence".

Because evidence has to be presented before it can be evaluated. You're not even allowing the evidence to be presented for evaluation.

Well, I think I just told you that the NT has not presented evidence (which is why the claims haven't been demonstrated). That is different from the NT as a whole not being evidence. I implied the latter in my argument, not the former.

---

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.

1. Why wouldn't you just accept what people wrote was true? There is ample evidence that the people of the day believed it to be true. Is there anything in particular that makes it definitely untrue? 

2. More of the same assertions. Now you say I cannot use reason, evidence and logic properly. Give me something to rebut, not the same claim over and over. 

3. So, both reasons you have given why people will reject 'reason, evidence, and logic' in favor of God gets rebutted (born into it, peer pressure) and then you back away from it.  So now you have moved on to 'no good reasons' -- which is to say the people are stupid. Ad hominem (another fallacy).

4. Come on. You have said so many times in so many ways there is "no evidence to suggest that God exists", "no reasons" to believe. You are moving the goal post (another fallacy)

Why do you attempt to separate knowledge and belief? Does not one feed the other? Do you think Christians skip this somehow? 

I didn't say "the Bible". I said the NT. What material scientific and historical inaccuracies are you referring to? Personal experience can't be verified? If I witness something I can't prove, that makes it...what, the equivalent to 'it never happened'? That level of hyper skepticism is untenable in one's life so you are just pulling it out for this particular topic -- special pleading (another fallacy). I don't care if you accept my cancer story or not. You cannot say it did not happen (no way, no how). To sum up this paragraph, I have cumulative evidence that you have not proved to me is neither nonexistent nor unreasonable (which is what you keep claiming). 

5. I am pointing out your argument is based on portraying people in a very specific way. If, say a Christian believes in evolution (which many many do) half of your argument crumbles. The other half is based on a lack of understanding about the range of beliefs that Christians hold (and why).

6. No, no, no. None of those things are settled science.  Here are some things we do not know: the mechanism how complex organs evolved where the components are useless without the whole, biological networks, "tree of life" has been tossed out--DNA does not confirm what scientist expected, fossil record/lack of intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, and natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient. If you are tempted to describe a theory of one type or another as an answer, make sure there is evidence for the theory and not just an explanation for a gap. This is the bar that you set: "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

7. Your argument is full of holes and you just repeat the same things over and over with little shifts to adapt to the rebuttal. You don't tell me why my beliefs are wrong, you just assert over and over that there is no evidence. I have given several kinds of evidence why I believe. I could add others. My biggest piece of evidence is the NT. I'm still waiting why that is "no evidence" and "not a reason" to believe.

This is becoming increasingly frustrating for me so I will not continue, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

First, you need a refresher on logical fallacies. Google can help you.
Second, you haven't studied evolution enough. Google can help you with this too.