Tyson gets it to a point. He does know but rejects God.
The question I have for Neil deGrasse Tyson is whether he is a believer in "naturalism". Which he is, so he is not being completely honest here about that. That being said, he does understand that movement we all see going on.
"in your face Atheists" indeed.
Tyson is right, Atheists shouldn't exist. "The only 'ist' I am, is a scientist." as it should be. Unfortunately you're a believer in naturalism also, so you're a "Naturalist" too. THAT is not science at all. That is a "movement" in itself sir.
Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.
Hopefully Neil deGrasse Tyson would be willing to admit that point. I will try to be hopeful that he would. THAT would be refreshing.
April 30, 2012
April 29, 2012
Atheists Debunked
Or as Dr. Greg Bahnsen puts it, "debunked by its philosophical arbitrariness"
The video was taken down but here is a link to it, even though I cannot embed it. For more argument in this debate watch this:
If you like to read, here is the transcript of the debate.
Here is the closing statement:
So, we seek in 'Debunking Atheists' by lovingly revealing this post's truth to them.
As Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You're right. As Dr. Bahnsen says, here is your evidence: When you talk about a claim which, when rejected, undermines the possibility of making intelligible all other claims. THAT is extraordinary! If I reject the idea of the amount of cereal in the world. That claim does not affect on a whole bunch of other claims. It is rather limited. But when you make the extraordinary claim that the philosophical precondition of intelligibility for anything, is based upon that worldview, that is a rather magnanimous thing which is Christianity. That is why the extraordinary claims of Christianity, about the existence of God and the supernatural, have been met with the extraordinary evidence that when you reject it, you undermine all philosophical possibility of making rationality, science, morality, possible. The supernatural if God is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.
bit.ly/AtheistsDebunked
The video was taken down but here is a link to it, even though I cannot embed it. For more argument in this debate watch this:
If you like to read, here is the transcript of the debate.
Here is the closing statement:
So, we seek in 'Debunking Atheists' by lovingly revealing this post's truth to them.
As Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You're right. As Dr. Bahnsen says, here is your evidence: When you talk about a claim which, when rejected, undermines the possibility of making intelligible all other claims. THAT is extraordinary! If I reject the idea of the amount of cereal in the world. That claim does not affect on a whole bunch of other claims. It is rather limited. But when you make the extraordinary claim that the philosophical precondition of intelligibility for anything, is based upon that worldview, that is a rather magnanimous thing which is Christianity. That is why the extraordinary claims of Christianity, about the existence of God and the supernatural, have been met with the extraordinary evidence that when you reject it, you undermine all philosophical possibility of making rationality, science, morality, possible. The supernatural if God is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.
bit.ly/AtheistsDebunked
April 1, 2012
Uptight Atheist Movement
This is what the feminist best known as boobquake girl, Jen McCreight, has called that tired, free thought blog, group and has decided to leave them for her betterment.
I believe we were the one that made her famous first by posting that the Tea Party copied her idea in a post I called "Tea Party Thieves?", after that the media, including Stephen Colbert, picked up on her other post. Anyone that disputes it is in denial. :7p
Jen is completely right about this "uptight Atheist movement" comment, and I am confident that God revealed that knowledge to her, though she may deny it. She eluded that she may even ditch the "feminist" label also. We wish her all the best and are grateful for the gifts God has given her.
Good for you Jen, for speaking truth and running to the light.
...Now, the kitchen is that way. :7)
I believe we were the one that made her famous first by posting that the Tea Party copied her idea in a post I called "Tea Party Thieves?", after that the media, including Stephen Colbert, picked up on her other post. Anyone that disputes it is in denial. :7p
Jen is completely right about this "uptight Atheist movement" comment, and I am confident that God revealed that knowledge to her, though she may deny it. She eluded that she may even ditch the "feminist" label also. We wish her all the best and are grateful for the gifts God has given her.
Good for you Jen, for speaking truth and running to the light.
...Now, the kitchen is that way. :7)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)