If you could have any of the following for 20 years, starting at age 20, and in perfect health (but can still grow old and get a disease), and exclusive of the others (as in you can only have one), and start out with any of these things in the USA in the town with the least crime, which would it be?:
1) A starship that can seat four with only enough space for four 120 oz coolers stacked on top of each other, able to destroy forty three ton asteroids made of iron in one hour before its weapon became useless, and able to travel anywhere in the universe instantly for a period of 20 years straight (but doesn’t come with a ready-made star map built in for automatic navigation, and no voice command or brain command) and which can be destroyed by armor piercing bullets when the shields are down (and they must be down to leave and enter the ship).
2) To be the most beautiful person of your sex for 20 years, but never rich for the same period of time.
3) To be the most rich for 20 years, but with average beauty at the time, and no restrictions but the usual ones in whatever country you were in as to what you could do with your money.
4) To be as wise as is possible for 20 years, meaning, to have the most useful knowledge of anyone on Earth, to know all that every other human on Earth knows, including military scientists, and ability to figure out what the best thing to do was in whatever circumstance you were in, BUT to have only average self-control at the time (with the possibility of improvement). But then lose all the wisdom after 20 years and revert back to average, (but not any gain in self control).
5) To be the most patient person on Earth for 20 years (meaning to have the most self-control, so that it would be extremely hard to anger and annoy you easily, though you could still become angry and annoyed after a long time of persistent provocation or long after the angering events occurred), but start out with just a little higher than average intelligence, and only average looks, and four gold coins.
6) To have the most beautiful woman (or man), age 14, on Earth as your wife/husband, who also has the most beautiful speaking voice (but only a little better than average singing), and who is also the most loving, who is a fundamentalist Calvinist type Christian, but who only has a little above average intelligence and wisdom, and who will be sterile for 30 years (at which point she/he will have high probabilities of having children who will end up being miscarried or severely brain-defective. And these are other things in the way: You are both famous and though it’s legal in your state to be married, in many other states, the law does not apply, and many liberal governors and police are dying to jail you as soon as you cross over into their state. Further: you will not be rich for 20 years, and will only have average intelligence and wisdom and looks to start out with, no car, no job, and only a crude bike and a small pure silver coin the size of a dime to start out with.
7) To have average looks and intelligence, average wisdom, no money, but, at 12 PM, become completely invisible (including anything within 2 inches of you) for one hour, ever day, for 20 years.
8) The same as 7, but rather than invisibility, you have the ability to withstand temperatures down to 20 degrees below zero and up to 190 degrees without getting injured or sick (however your hair will still freeze or dry out unless protected), for 20 years.
9) To be the first person to capture a living bigfoot and have it put in mass public display for all to see, and not once, but more within hours of whenever you felt like it, more. And not only that, to be the first person to capture living dinosaurs found surviving in remote places, including deep underground, large ones that were thought to have gone extinct by many evolutionists, like T-Rex and Brontosauri, Pterodactyls etc., and even fire breathing ones, even dragons, so that the entire world would be in wonderment of you as much as the animals you were catching. However, you start out with far below average looks, are five feet tall, start out with just a crossbow and a few crossbow arrows and will have a hard to overcome lisp for 20 years.
10) To be of average looks and a little above average intelligence and wisdom, poor for 20 years, with no wife or kids of your own, and no car, only crude to a little above average bikes to use at times, or a middle class bus or plane, much more sad than happy, nearly depressed all the time, and often uncomfortable, and rarely getting good sleep and often be persecuted and will die in chains with your head cut off. But for 20 years will be a genuine prophet of God and know for sure that he loves you and that after the 20 years of prophesying, at which point you will die, will die knowing that you will eventually wake up to find yourself looking like a god, feeling like you are in perfect health, and always at peace and happy, always, as in forever, but as for the other nine choices, you will not have such assurance, not even close, of going to Heaven, and should you ever attempt to, would only have weak faith, even after the 20 years had passed, and a little less than often would wonder if you were going to Hell, a thought that would sometimes interfere with your enjoyment of life.
Which of these ten lives would you choose?
(Continued from the previous post):
In order of what seemed to be most relevant (in my opinion):
According to “The New Liberalism” “liberalism was strategically misrepresented libertinism” by unnamed persons, so for all anyone knows this is just a delusion or lie by the writer who himself recognizes a real connection.
According to “The New Revolution: Libertine Liberal vs Classic Liberal”:
There is a difference between “liberal” and “libertine”. We have, in the course of many social revolutions, struggled to define that line with varying degrees of success. “Libertine” behavior has and will always be looked upon askance because the connotation of “libertine” means the breakdown of society and the breakdown of society has not always been for the good of society. “Libertine” is to be free, not only in thought and expression, but from morality and societal norms. “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.
Therein lies our problem with modern day definition of the term “liberal”. Somewhere around 1967 the term “liberal” became confused with the “libertine” revolution of the counter culture. While the movement began in the grandest of idealism of freedom and equality for minorities, retaining its “liberal” idealism for a time, it quickly slipped its anchorage and drifted resolutely towards the “libertine”.
My thoughts on “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.” is that it sounds like to me, “Liberalism is libertinism only with the attempt to justify it using morals” which is an obvious contradiction. It seems analogous to me like saying (without the pretentious “idealism” word), “Liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think whatever you feel like without being punished, and studying how to justify this belief using current (Christian?) morals or believing that they are (for what reason?)”. Therefore, liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think (what about “and feel”?) whatever you want to, from abusing and raping, torturing and murdering for fun, to imagine and express with delight abusing kids and the destruction of all moral beings with the justification for doing so with (Christian?) morality. This is obviously a contradictory belief system, just like Hinduism with it’s original practices of widow-burning and ritualistic murder of strangers/travelers yet claiming that it’s about enlightening yourself by avoiding “evil”, and not saying what “evil” is.
Strangely, Wikipedia (which says a libertine is a person without morals) has a hidden key phrase on its libertinism entry: “Classical liberalism”. Being that Wikipedia is controlled by liberals (the head being the liberal and atheist Jimmy/Jimbo Wales (who also apparently has narcissism disorder), it’s obvious to me why they would hide saying that liberalism was based on immorality. Why they would hide the phrase though, is something I don’t understand, though I can imagine a demon was mocking God in a connivingly and malicious way, by possessing someone and getting them to place that hint. I tried to see if the phrase was simply an outdated Google result by looking at Google’s cache, but found nothing. The Classical Liberalism entry also makes no connection. The only page in which the two are mentioned together is the Individualism page (which by the way is worded pretentiously and not something a “lay person” could easily understand).
Side note: To my surprise I found out that John Calvin had interacted with and spoke against “libertines” (1)(2)(3), surprised because that man figures prominently in my life, and just didn’t think it would have anything to do with him.
The sad thing is is that “libertine” would best have been associated with Christianity, especially Catholics who became true Christians after being freed from Roman Catholicism, but “freethinkers” (many of whom seem to be atheists) messed that up, just like they did with the words “free”, “liberal*”, “science” and “skeptic” (1)(2). They also try to do this with logical fallacies (which has to do with philosophy). The only atheist I can think of who made a decent contribution to any of these fields is Bertrand Russel for philosophy and Tesla for electronics and engineering. Mark Twain contributed to humor.
*The link to the word liberal (above) links to a blog on the ancient meaning of the word liberal and uses a certain word for a certain male private part that some may consider offensive.
Where do these words come from and how did they get their meanings?
Quack (and quackery): http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-quackery/index.html, http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/curiousq.htm, http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-qua1.htm
Moron: http://listverse.com/2007/08/28/10-slang-words-and-phrases-explained, http://voices.yahoo.com/origin-word-moron-eugenics-racism-henry-474052.html, http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8632, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moron, http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8632
Dummy: Some might instantly think that this wasn’t even worth mentioning because the meaning would be so obvious: a wooden dummy being the meaning behind calling someone a dummy, which is what I thought, but wanting to give full coverage of common insults, and curious if anyone looked deep into the word, found out I was wrong (and forgot the word “dumb” in the King James version of the Bible I realized when reading the second website linked to the second link), http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dummy, http://www.dailywritingtips.com/numskulls-noodles-and-nincompoops, http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-meaning-nincompoop
By the way: while looking up these words, I ended up on Codelphia.com due to Google having an outdated lookup for the word “kook”, and while looking for the now gone definition, saw the word libertine defined on top. I learned, with some deduction of my own, that it used to mean a person who was freed from Roman slavery, but later freethinkers (often associated with atheists) started referred to themselves as such, and then Christians associated the word libertine with those who were immoral/without morals, and then though maybe that that was where the word “liberal” may have come from. I came across this interesting site on the meaning of “freedom” while doing research to see if I was right. Was my guess right?…
A few minutes ago I just looked at a site on carm.org that had explanations as to why “If God is love why would he send billions of people to Hell?” which are topics I wrote about a day or two ago and last year and which related to free will, because groups of certain belief types bring it up. While reading it, I came to this disappointing answer:
Second, if someone says that it is wrong for God to allow someone to be born and who will go to hell, then would he rather have God remove our freedom to rebel against Him so that no one can be blamed for sin? If the critic says he only wants those people born who go to heaven, then how are they truly free and how would that fulfill the ultimate plan of God to sacrifice His Son for the redemption of mankind?
This answer seems Arminian-like to me, because they have an obsession with free will, as in a belief that their free will is above God’s or free of his will (which are wrong and false beliefs). It makes no sense, because by that logic than the angels that never sinned, which God’s Spirit no doubt prevents from sinning (just as it directly or indirectly causes humans whom God loves, to do true good) are not free, or that humans that are “filled with the God’s Spirit” don’t have free will or rather, are “robots” or “zombies” as certain Christians, especially Mormons, would say. It also does not make sense because it implies to other wrong things: 1) that free will is sacred and must not be turned off or it’s some sort of sin God would be committing, and 2) that God could somehow get a person to sin by controlling their will directly, which I think is implied because of this part: “would [you] rather have God remove [your] freedom to rebel against Him … then how are [you] truly free [unless you can do what offends him? (etc.)]” Do you see how sick that sounds? That is how those who hate God, and Arminians think though. It sounds very sick to a person like me who loves God.
To Tina Fiorda and Tilde Cameron:
Hi, I’m a logician. I don’t like to waste time so I will go right to the point:
You made a false claim that God, because he “is love” wouldn’t punish. God isn’t literally love, if so, he’d not be God, he’d be an emotion, which makes no sense, because emotions aren’t alive, they are are response of living beings. Further, if God could only love, he wouldn’t have a free will, he’d be a slave to love so to speak (supposing there was such thing as living love that could be God at the same time, but he’s not. It’s too convenient and wishful thinking.
So, major error there. Also, it’s common knowledge you punish for two reason: justice and to teach, just as you said, to teach. Is God NOT teaching by causing pain? Or is he not teaching when he exercises justice? Using your logic, no one should punish, people should get away with crimes, no one should be restrained even. Your logic is one sided and biased too, because you’re saying God shouldn’t have the right to exercise his truly free will.
Your second error: You said he gave us free will. Free will doesn’t justify doing wrong, it’s not a free ticket to do wrong or to try and do whatever we want.
Third error: You said, in response to the Christian who corrected you with the Bible, that “we feel” such and such. Feeling is inferior to reasoning. It’s by following your feelings over reasoning that is the main reason for fights (not as others say in a vague way, “religion” as in, “being religious.”) Simple example: children fighting, bad marrying decisions, unprepared pregnancy, leading to endless baby-murders, divorces and wrecked lives.
Fourth error (though is the same as the third one): Does that “resonate” with you? You said that your message “resonates” with you. What does that mean? It’s a vague statement that explains nothing. You also said that spirits can also be positive and not negative, and asked, “Why must they only be negative”? However your question is a rhetoric fallacy: your question doesn’t prove that spirits communicating in a way forbidden by the Bible won’t always be negative.
Fifth error: You’re use of the word “negative” is also vague. It has multiple meanings that don’t match. Negative can mean, “Displeasing”, “not having messages or an attitude conveying happiness” or “being unthankful and/or having a fault-finding attitude out of hatred”. The first two aren’t necessarily bad, the third is, so these definitions are not all compatible. Your question therefore could not be understood, it was meaningless. If you hadn’t used that deliberately deceptive New Age term and instead used the biblical “evil”, you would have been understandable and not teaching and spreading confusion.
The Bible makes it clear that consulting a spirit will have negative consequences because God forbade it, and sin (going against his command/s) leads to punishment, or what you might vaguely call “negative consequences.” That is why you will always. if “a spirit” really is speaking to you, get a deceptive message over all (not that every single thing said is going to be a lie). It’s also not the same as a sin like theft, in which you may have a temporary “positive” as you might call it, result, like getting a bottle of aspirin and getting rid of a headache. A demon doesn’t do anything beneficial, nothing significantly beneficial, not usually at least. It’s intent is always to deceive or facilitate some deception, including just by being silent if that’s all it feels like doing or was told to do by Satan. A demon is not like a genie in a bottle. It’s like an angry tormented snake covered in sharp thorns that wants to relieve its pain and is willing to harm you if it thinks it can ease its pain by doing so.
Sixth error: You’re use of the word “spirit” is also deceptively vague. You’re purposely avoiding specifying angels and demons and attempting to make people think that you can also talk to dead humans. There is no evidence, with the exception of one debatable verse in the Bible, that humans, especially unforgiven ones, will communicate after dying.
Seventh error: You said God unconditionally loves. Who says that, and what is the evidence for that? The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that, and if it did, it would be a major contradiction using your interpretation. You’re picking and choosing which verses you want to believe, and simply going with what is convenient and sounds most pleasing to your ears.
Eighth error: You can’t create a reality and there is no such thing as more than one. That’s an incorrect usage of the word. The way in which you use it goes opposite of one of the only definitions, which is, “The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.” So you’re midefining it, completely going against it, by saying there is more than one reality. The word has not been used that way till New Agers started misusing it. It’s a delusional use of the word and sets people up for a fall and can get people killed because you are teaching people that they can literally cause dangerous things to be safe just by wishing or that lies can be true just by wishing, like making child abuse a good thing that directly helps children, or driving on the wrong side of traffic something that will improve safety, or jumping off a cliff something that will be a positive experience that leads to enlightenment and immorality rather. It’s an extremely against common sense delusion. It could even cause children to become mentally ill if they were repeatedly taught to believe in imaginary things and told that they can wish things into reality or wish things away, like the sun, and are later traumatized into a permanent mentally deluded state when someone abuses them, by endlessly responding with delusional defenses like pretending that the abuse is good, and even becoming worse by becoming addicted to abuse. Your reality creating fallacy is actually one of the roots of all logical fallacies: denial of absolute truth or rather, that there are absolute lies. And to deny that leads to endless confusion and mistakes. Your claim that we can create realities therefore refutes your very claim, because I can, according to you, create a reality in which you are completely false (and yet that can’t be true either because you deny that there is anything that can be completely true), hence why I said your reality is unworkable. An analogy of your teaching would be if we lived in a completely red universe, yet you say, “The universe is blue, but not truly, really, it’s red, but not really; because we can see blue if we want too, because we have free will. Just imagine you’re seeing red only?” And of course you ignore the test: just check to see if anyone is able to see red only using something other than your feelings and imagination.
So, you’ve created a life-wrecking, false and contradictory reality if anything, one that isn’t loving as you repeatedly insisted during your interview by Noory. And your using vague words makes it harder for the ignorant, gullible and stupid to realize that.
I hope you appreciate my patience in using my “free will” and valuable time to correct your mistakes for the benefit of all. You can learn how to be saved via the salvation link above.
[Note, for those looking for an extensive list of arguments against the Bible, religion or specifically against the existence of God or a deliberate creation of the universe, click the long titled, "Top Arguments" link on top].
Post link: http://degrasse.tk (Note, if you came through this link (a dot.tk link), then attempting to open links via a left click will not work, you have to open them with a right click, you can save yourself time if you intend to check out all the links by right clicking this link to break out of the dot.tk one: http://wp.me/pDXRw-1QP)
Last night and early in the morning Neil deGrasse Tyson. with his 340,000+ Twitter followers, far surpassing Michio Kaku’s following of 72,664 and even Richard Dawkins’ 329,928. obviously mostly obsessive white atheists and liberals who think they’ve found a champion and fulfillment of their goals: a well-spoken black evolutionist liberal, spread decades old myths about the Bible on Coast to Coast AM. The only ones I can thing of who has a much greater following on the Christian side, is Rick Warren with 544,059, which is horrible, because Rick is a liberal narcissist and liar like Dawkins who wrecks Christianity with his pandering, and Joel Osteen with 554,756, both of whom probably share many of the same followers. For more comparison: The liberal panderer Mormon Mitt Romney; 357,614 followers, the Libertarian Ron Paul; 253,941, and the Conservative Rick Santorum (whom Ron Paul unfortunately slandered); 151,461. It is nice to know that when Paul’s and Santorum’s followers are added up (405,402) that it well surpasses deGrasses following, but I know many of their followers are probably evolutionists, which is bad, because evolution is a gateway and used as a Trojan for liberalism.
Refuting Neil’s myths is easy, because all you have to do is apply a little reasoning and not take the Bible out of context like he did, and because a search engine helps to greatly speed up finding out the facts.
“The OT has no forgiveness like the NT, and in the NT you’re not punished if you do wrong”. Could you give a more childish comment, simple-minded about the world’s most influential book, best selling, most free, most translated, most widespread since at least the past 1000 years? Arrogant. Why Neil deGrasse Tyson, “scientist”, is wrong:
1) If God was unforgiving in the Old Testament like Neil says, who said, “then I don’t see it” with his presumptuous-ignoring-the-obvious-facts sarcastic attitude, then how did anyone or anything survive for the New Testament to be produced?! Shouldn’t God in his fits of anger as Neil made him out to do, have destroyed everything, or at least Satan the moment he did wrong, and all the other angels who rebelled? And then Adam and Eve never would have sinned. And suppose God ignored Satan and the other rebel angels, wouldn’t have Adam and Eve been instantly killed and sent to Hell, and then there would be no humans like Neil to smugly and confidently claim to have most of the answers, and that God was a merciless God of the gaps.
2) Further (and it’s obvious Neil is nothing close to a scholar on the Bible, nothing close to an expert of even amateur study of it, because besides what I just said being very obvious,) the OT prophets repeatedly asking God to show mercy and to forgive, and he repeatedly does. In fact Jesus rebuked the law-obsessed law-creating-obsessed Pharisees (sounds like the “control-freak” liberals and conservatives doesn’t it?) for this same oversight, saying, to them, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13) and, “And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.” (Matthew 12:7). Yes Neil, you would not have condemned the Christians who spend their lives being charitable to others, and peaceful, not smugly or violently mocking while pretending to have all the answers to everything they can’t explain, and fulfilling the law much better than someone like you, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
Neil also said there’s no punishment in the New Testament. That is a major, major argument of ignorance and shows Neil truly has merely glanced at some pages in the Bible or read at least a few parroted reasonless attacks against it and likewise is merely parroting them too. Examples of how obviously wrong Neil is (and how in the world if you’ve read the Bible can you miss this long passage?):
Mat 25:1 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
Mat 25:2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
Mat 25:3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,
Mat 25:4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.
Mat 25:5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept.
Mat 25:6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’
Mat 25:7 Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps.
Mat 25:8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’
Mat 25:9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’
Mat 25:10 And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.
Mat 25:11 Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’
Mat 25:12 But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’
Mat 25:13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.
Mat 25:14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.
Mat 25:15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
Mat 25:16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more.
Mat 25:17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more.
Mat 25:18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money.
Mat 25:19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.
Mat 25:20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’
Mat 25:21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’
Mat 25:22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’
Mat 25:23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’
Mat 25:24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed,
Mat 25:25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’
Mat 25:26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?
Mat 25:27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.
Mat 25:28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.
Mat 25:29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Mat 25:30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Mat 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
Mat 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Mat 25:33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
Mat 25:36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Mat 25:37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
Mat 25:38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
Mat 25:39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
Mat 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Mat 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Mat 25:42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
Mat 25:44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’
Mat 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” – ESV
John the Baptist also said to the Pharisees (and this is a mere three pages into the first book of the New Testament!): “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” This is God’s wrath being spoken of, and John is talking about Judgment Day and Hell, and perhaps about the prophesied and fulfilled destruction of Jerusalem ahead too.
And listen to Neil’s own words about NASA whom he promotes, “Science has averaged no more than a quarter of the total budget (of NASA). … It’s meaningless to listen to them complain about science not getting done (because) science was not the driver.” Then what was the driver Neil? If not science than what? It’s obvious: to spread myths and propaganda like you to “pull the wool” over the eyes of the gullible goats like yourself, and an attempt and blinding us sheep who can see and who know our Master’s voice. The space-exploring governments of the world know that was is on the Moon and Mars refute the false history that people like you promote, which is that man started out stupid, and slowly evolved out of his stupidity into an intelligent state which evolution supposedly does not favor (which begs the question: why then is man intelligent, much more intelligent than animals?) NASA is a front used for convincing the world that there is nothing much exciting about the Moon and Mars, nothing like ancient man-made or alien-made ruins, or left over technology or information or evidence that Darwinism is false. Darwinism is used as propaganda for liberals to use for their personal agenda, which is against that of God’s plans.
And how obvious is this?: Jesus was repeatedly warning people about WHY they should obey God and ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. Forgiveness for nothing? From what? FROM GOD’S WRATH SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT END UP IN HELL. Not, “Cuz now I Jesus was born, feel like just telling u so.” No: In human terms, God planned everything out before anything was even made, but using a past tense word is not accurate, since God didn’t first exist in time, but made time when he either made Heaven or this universe. That is obvious from the long passage I quoted. And how did Neil miss the pinnacle of the New Testament books?: Jesus being severely punished with God’s wrath, with the equivalent of Hellfire for the sins “of the world”? So what is this “change” that Neil claims took place? No, like God says, he is not a man that he should change his mind or lie. God fulfilled his plans in Jesus to provide everlasting mercy to those he forgave by taking his wrath out on Christ, who voluntarily allowed himself to be sacrificed for those He chose to forgive, while allowing everyone else to serve as an everlasting example of the consequence of disobeying God. Disobedience which includes lying, theft, disrespecting your parents, hating your neighbor, not forgiving your neighbor, being stingy, and going against what was implied was wrong, like being arrogant and presumptuous (assuming things).
Again, farther along in the New Testament, it says,
Jud 1:5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Jud 1:6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day–
Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.
Neil said that God was called a God of the Gaps because in the past 400 years (as in until the REFORMATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM WHICH CALVINISTS EMERGED, Neil), that “God did it” as people say, was used as a convenient explanation for why something happened, or common things for which people couldn’t explain. Neil said that till then people less and less said that because most of the things not understood now have explanations for them. However, Neil perpetuated eight myths in one (for a total of 11 myths listed in this post):
1) Myth one: That there are scientifically full and correct explanations as to why most things exist or happen (wow is that a major error and oversight and a sign of incredible delusion and blindness and arrogance, if that were true then no one should complain about the funding for science exploration being cut to near zero and you shouldn’t care if that happens to your planetarium either Neil). So first Mainstreamers want us to believe that “science (scientists more accurately) are always learning and improving and that mistakes get fixed fairly quickly” and now “We’ve got most of the answers”?
2) Second myth: God of the Gaps Hypocrisy: Where is the evidence for the Big Bang which happened a massive, giant, enormous, gargantuan 15 billion years ago? What a gap! Where is the evidence for abiogenesis being anything close to possible? Where are the billions of missing links that should exist in nice convenient columns to show evolution of the “creation of new helpful information” happened. And that is a necessary a specific definition which evolutionists ignore in place of deliberate vagueness. It’s their sleight of hand magic illusionist trick, hoping that people will think that any change, including losing your brain and getting dumber and dumbed down, is “evolution.” Bring your dead missing links into Times Square Neil, better yet, we true Christains can bring you “living fossils” there that forever refute Darwinian evolution theory, which is a theory twisted off of Edward Blyth, a naturist and creationist Christian, whom Darwin connivingly would not credit. It’s you who deny that God exists and worship Darwin and Einstein who worship Gaps and Imaginary Knowledge.
3) Third myth, that Mainstream science can have all the explanations without evidence. Don’t you Mainstreamers call that, “blind faith” and as you said on Coast to Coast AM, “belief” (and there is nothing wrong with belief). How can science have all the correct explanations, like how the universe started and why, if there is no evidence for it? Is that not massive delusion?
4) Fourth myth: Christians would say, “God did it.” Neil, you said “bring a dead body into Times Square” to prove aliens exist, can you bring your dead alien of “God did it” to fill in the evidence gaps for your mere claims about how Christians would commonly explain things?
5) A fifth myth which stems from the fourth, is that Christians EXPLAINED away things by saying things supposedly, like, “God did it” (which is an insulting exaggeration mocking phrase that anti-Christians and atheists made up), when Christians merely would say that God was ultimately controlling all things. No Christian said, “It wasn’t me who put food into my mouth, God did it.” And then when realizing it was their own hand then said, “Now I no longer believe in God as much because I realized my own hand was bringing food into my mouth.” Neil and others are committing something I call “vagueness fallacy” and “bait and switch” by perpetuating this myth. The vagueness is that they say Christians would say, “God did it,” or “was responsible” but simultaneously confusing this as to WHETHER OR NOT CHRISTIANS BELIEVED GOD WAS THE CREATOR AND CONTROLLER OF THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. Again, the two subjects are: unexplained events, common or not and whether or not God created and controls things and is why ultimately things happen the way they do, supernatural events or not, common or not. For example, some Christian might think (and this is an accurate example, unlike that spread by atheists) that someone was struck by lightning for doing wrong or if something beneficial happened, as a direct intervention by God, but not that there are no NATURAL LAWS as to how lightning is created. Christians believe in laws, the Bible is about laws; how Neil and other anti-Christians miss that is incredible. Even if it were true, as an atheist might give as an example, that Christians thought lightning was a direct AN ACT of God, does not logically mean that they thought everything was, like a deer deciding to eat a patch of flowers that were closer to a Christian hunter rather than some farther away. That is easily explained as, “I was closer to that patch as was the deer, so that is why it moved closer to me, making it easier for me to kill.” The Bible itself teaches the opposite of everything being directly controlled by God:
Deu 8:17 Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’
Deu 8:18 You shall remember Yahweh your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. – ESV The NIV translation is,
Deu 8:17 You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.”
Deu 8:18 But remember the Yahweh your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today.
And I say “vagueness fallacy” because saying that RELIGIOUS PEOPLE or merely CHRISTIANS along with “God did it” ARE ALL VAGUE: What Christians? What religious people? And that goes to another seventh myth (which I talk about after the eighth one):
6) A sixth myth is that Christians would necessarily become less religious, more atheistic and some atheist and in all cases more scientific (do any atheists ever say anything to the contrary, never) when finding an explanation for some natural phenomenon or something that they thought was supernatural/directly an act of God. So, when Christians were supposedly still explaining away everything as “God did it” (until for some magical reason that Neil deGrasse Tyson conveniently does not mention at all, which is pathetic being that he’s supposed to be a master astronomer and is held in high esteem by hundreds of thousands of liberals and anti-Christians) heard an explanation for something like why lightning happens the felt less that God was necessary FOR THE CREATION of the universe or less someone who needed to be worshiped and more scientific). Even if that were true in some instances, that is still an assumption and a plainly wrong one since Christians by the hundreds of millions still worship God. They don’t worship God BECAUSE THEY DON’T THINK HE CONTROLS ANYTHING OR ISN’T ULTIMATELY CONTROLLING ALL THINGS. Now how did you not notice or realize that? So because I can now explain A LITTLE, HOW electricity flows through a wire (not WHY Neil, which neither you nor anyone else can explain), that’s going to mean I will then think God has nothing to do with why it exists or ultimately why it flows through anything? Where did you get that “dead body”? Where’s your living ones? All you can show is other confused doubters and atheists whom you and others similar to you helped bring to that state with your spreading of myths, truth-hiding, fault-finding, and the wrong things you’ve implied, the indirect lies you’ve made, from doing those things. But atheists are still a small minority, and ex-Christians among them an even smaller minority.
7) An implied seventh myth from Neil’s rambling is that it was atheists and scientists (as in Christians who rethought what the Bible said and doubted the Bible) who came up with science. That is absolutely wrong and there is no evidence for that. Neil conveniently, using the “God did it” or “gods did it” / “Bible-doubters and atheists did it” myth while conveniently ignoring the obvious:
Neil, in his sinful bias, common to all mankind, looking from the criminal’s view and refusing to believe the view God gives throughout his word, deluding himself into thinking it’s simply men making up a wrathful God or that God is just mean and imperfect and nothing special then (but man is whom he made?! how arrogant!), doesn’t see the God who said,
“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me, make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below, not bow down to them or worship them; for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land Yahweh your God is giving you. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. … “‘Don’t seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh.” (Exodus 20:1-7, Leviticus 19:18) “Yahweh came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, “Yahweh”. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “Yahweh, Yahweh, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished” (Exodus 34:5-7).
No, He doesn’t see all of that like other fault-finders don’t, but rather his fault-finder mind sees, “What? Punishes children for things they didn’t do?! Then forget the silly Bible! I’ll just study astronomy and eat good-tasting food.” Or as he said on Coast to Coast, “A God who punishes you if you don’t obey him.” Well damn that God who punishes criminals and rebels, that God who for 1000 years watched with extreme distress and sorrow as man increasingly became murderous to the point where he flooded them all out, something which Neil and other fault-finders never mention, not even that God flooded possibly billions of people out of existence. Strange oversight, instead he mentions on Coast that after he gave Moses the commandments he killed people for merely worshiping a calf. No Neil, that wasn’t merely why, he did so because they saw multiple supernatural punishments and chances for mercy on their enemies while a giant pillar of smoke and fire was behind them and even then their enemies pursued them till death in a flood, and even while they saw Moses go to a mountain burning with fire and booming with thunder, they still went ahead and TOOK THE TIME TO HEAP VALUABLE GOLD TOGETHER, AND TAKE THE TIME TO HAMMER IT INTO A STUPID COW, TO THEN WORSHIP IT. That is all a long “cold-blooded” act of extreme defiance, one in which they were returning to the very oppression they escaped from and so endorsing oppression. Not, “All the sudden they made a little cow idol and God just killed them instantly.” No, it wasn’t instant death either Neil, they had a chance to repent, but instead they decided to try and murder Moses and those who followed God. And even though Neil overlooks all that, that still can’t be used as an excuse for his objection to a God who punishes liars, thieves, peace-breakers, insulters, hatemongers, and murderers. Why else would that be offensive to Neil unless those kinds of rebellions were going on inside him and he delighted in those things?
8) An eighth myth stemming from the “God did it” one is that ALL CHRISTIANS thought in this supposed way. Wrong. Catholics were the dominate religion of Europe, dwarfing everything else and attempting to squeeze all the others, even using armies on the attack to destroy them all, including alternate forms of Christianity. Neil and others ignorant about religion and history simply think Catholics were the only ones around. And even if they perpetuate “Burning Times” myth as an attack on “Christians”, they seem to often forget while talking about how science came about, that supposedly millions of witches existed. But no doubt forget about them because they view them as all completely worthless for anything scientific and imagine people who were mostly female, spell casting, potion making idiots. This is an ironic error in Mainstreamer dogma, because many Mainstream archeologists claim that it was the pagans, like Druid priests, who were adept at astronomical observation and the possible makers of Stonehenge and other henges. It could also be said that sorcerers created the Pyramids or had to do with their idolatrous details. I know of no Mainstreamer who would say “ancient scientists” created those things, because to say that would be to give their precious science credit to stupid pagans who couldn’t possibly have had advanced knowledge or scientific knowledge but being religious, must have been stupid people who simply said, “Gods did it.”
It’s a widespread Mainstream Science “fact” that many pagans, including in India, were master astronomers, but deGrasse, who thinks he knows nearly everything, doesn’t know (even though is looked on it seems to me, as being a master astronomer), these things that a master astronomer should know and not forget. Forgetting about these Medieval witches though is a more understandable oversight, because people usually think of spell-casting, potion-making females, idiots, who had nothing to do with contributing to science, but were rather working against it by spreading belief in magic. It’s a myth by the way that there were millions of witches and that they were all burned or tortured to death.The Catholic Church actually incorporated much Pagan beliefs and wrapped it up in pseudo-Christian talk.
Though Neil says or implies a great change for the better happened 400 years ago (the Reformation), he conveniently doesn’t go into the details as to why it happened. As an atheist who would in his bias and ignorance, he would no doubt simply say, “Well, the Renaissance happened and Galileo discovered planets when around the sun not the other way around, but the church didn’t like that and tried to kill him for it.” And that is another myth.
Myth Four: Years earlier, Neil said that the universe wasn’t designed for man because of exploding stars. This is another comment made in ignorance of what the Bible says. It doesn’t say that the universe was designed for man to live anywhere within it, nor does it say that Earth even was designed for man to live anywhere on or in it. Using Neil’s baby-brained logic God should be hand feeding us baby food not even straight to our mouths, but just making it appear in our stomachs, or should have created us not just in his image, but with all his knowledge and abilities so that we wouldn’t have to do a thing and wouldn’t be subservient to him. You wish Neil, but what did you do to deserve that if it were possible for there to be more than one all powerful, all knowing, all controlling being? Nothing. And you never will deserve a gift like that. There was a man who gave up his glory though, and refrained from using his powers to instantly punish his enemies, who earned the glory God gave him, and that person was Jesus, also known as Yeshua, and Christ.
Neil’s Rant on “Beliefs”
On Coast, Neil also said, “Belief is not a word in my currency… to assert a knowledge of something when you have an option of getting more data (but not doing so and believing something anyways without doing so then I have a problem with “belief)”. Your own words Neil, on Coast to Coast, 16 minutes before it ended, talking about aliens and the Mainstream Cult version of the scientific method. Why not apply that principle to religion, Christianity, and the Bible too? Is simply reading a few verses in the Bible? Is science about being careless or patient and careful and not “jumping the gun” and “being quick to draw conclusions” and “double checking” and “making sure” and “testing the results thoroughly”? Instead, when it comes to religion, you make snap judgments, ignore thousands of years of history and use a few examples of whatever to paint with a broad brush your biased your single-perspective two-dimensional distorted view, using the distorted lens of your highly fault mind and worse heart. If you know anything about logical fallacies, then at least use them and study them further to understand the Bible better, and read the Bible more and more carefully, if you won’t have the humility to pray to God to understand it when you hear or rad verses from it without trying to deliberately do so.
The host of the show, George Noory, when trying to get deGrasse’s opinion on aliens visiting earth asked, “I wonder if there are any places like the Island of Doctor Moreau” where illegal human experiments were being carried out, and deGrasse said he didn’t think it was possible because people travel everywhere. You mean like every single place on Earth? So the government, no government, no business, no organization, no one, can’t build anything secret or keep secrets? Talk about stupid and naive and ignoring the obvious. And Noory brought up the obvious, he asked, “What about Area 51?” deGrasse then said, “Yes the government can keep secrets,” doing a complete turn around, but then said, “but that doesn’t mean anything extra-oridinary is going on” and committing the logical fallacy called “bait and switch” by switching from one subject, “Can the government (or any organization) keep secrets” to “amazing secrets”. Now why couldn’t a government keep amazing secrets? His explanation was that “most of them are not interesting”, boring. But does that mean all? No, he said, “most”, so why then did he say it wasn’t possible because of people traveling everywhere? And what ignorant moron his age hasn’t seen the videos of extraordinary things going on above Area 51, or anywhere in the sky? How stupid and oblivious to obvious, AND BORING, can you be? Yet he tries to come off as witty and exciting and got 340,000 other boring snorers to follow him!
What Are Neil’s Qualifications to Judge Religion, the Bible, and to Make Philosophical Statements of Fact?
Does Neil’s education have anything to do with religion, philosophy, neuroscience, psychology or even some general history of any of the most influential countries of the world, like Britain, France, China, America, Russia, Germany, Spain, Israel, or among the least: Portugal? Let’s look at what his website says:
PhD: Astrophysics, May 1991
Columbia University, New York City
Research area: Galactic Bulge – chemical evolution, abundances, and structure (HUH? And this is practical for? This is not even useful unlike a liberal art! “chemical evolution” Why not study the evolution of rocks too? What a waste of time and chasing fantasies.)
Advisor: Prof. R. Michael Rich
MPhil: Astrophysics, May 1989
Columbia University, New York City
Research area: Stellar Evolution
MA: Astronomy May 1983
University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Research area: Star Formation models for Dwarf Galaxies (another fantasy chasing research area in which nothing useful has been learned or rather in which truth is rejeted).
Advisor: Prof. John M. Scalo
BA: Physics June 1980 (THAT’S ALL?! A BACHELORS IN PHYSICS?! NOT A MASTERS? This is who liberals and atheists have allowed a 340,000+ following on Twitter?! A BA HOLDER OF PHYSICS WITH NOT EVEN ONE USEFUL INVENTION ON HIS BELT?!)
Cambridge, Massachusetts <—- Can anyone say “space filler”?
The Bronx High School of Science (Apparently you should avoid letting your kids attend this school)
Astrophysics Emphasis: June 1976 (wow, impressed, there was emphasis in astrophysics in High School, but not world religions, philosophy, or psychology). Shouldn’t Neil have mentioned where Bronx High School is located? Apparently it’s not as obvious as “Harvard” in Neil’s mind.
In his book section this fraud, yes a con artist, and crackpot seems to make it look as if he’s written a mountain of books by including whatever in his life, including CAMEO APPEARANCES on the same page and publishers under his books and his name to bulk up the length of the list. Pathetic, narcissistic, anal. But let’s look at his books to see if any of them have to do with religion, philosophy or psychology:
1) Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military
Neil deGrasse Tyson and Avis Lang
A review and assessment of the centuries-old relationship between the study of the universe and the waging of war, with emphasis on the technologies common to both.
Usefulness level? Think: a man who is helping to ally the greatness of war’s partnership with astronomy. How about how astronomy was used for peace? With liberals controlling the most highly paid astronomical efforts big surprise they aren’t used for peace, but war and anti-Christian propaganda. Not useful except for warmongers or some very specialized and obscure debate.
2) Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier
Reflections on the mismatch between the public’s vision of our future in space and persistent geo-political forces that thwart them.
You mean like liberal agendas, Neil? Instead Neil vagueifies the subject by calling it “geo-political”. Wow, vague, and overall a waste of time. Neil isn’t an expert or anything close to one in politics, better then to listen to those who are.
3) The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet
An exposition of the often-tempestuous correspondence between Tyson and his colleagues as well as between Tyson and school children—all over the demotion of Pluto from its planet status.
A vain entanglement.
4) Death By Black Hole, And Other Cosmic Quandaries
Anthology of the best essays that have appeared in Natural History magazine under the title “Universe.”
Useful? No. This obviously a compilation of vain Darwinist talk.
5) Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution
The remarkable beginnings of life, the universe, and everything. Companion Book to the PBS-NOVA series on cosmic origins. Premiered September 28-29, 2004
6) Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge
A collection of twenty contributed essays on the modern frontier of astrophysics, with commentary and historical material added by the editors. A book conceived along with the 2000 opening of the Hayden Planetarium and Rose Center for Earth and Space.
Useful to know the “conceived” part right? Not. It be more useful to read this or read some Popular Science or Mechanics or Astronomy mags, or tech websites. Useless and vain.
7) One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos
The connections of astrophysics with everyday life. The companion book to the 2000 opening of the Hayden Planetarium and Rose Center for Earth and Space.
Winner: American Institute of Physics, 2001 Science Writing Award
His fellow Darwinists gave it an award; they patted his back in other words and said, “Look at what he said! He promoted Darwinism!” and that was worth mentioning because? Creationists don’t care if your friends patted your back and gave you awards Neil.
8) One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos – On Line Version
The One Universe book enhanced with 1,000 hyperlinks, review questions and problems sets.
The what? And this book is significantly helpful for anything how?
9) The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist
According to Skeptics and blind people like you Neil, rockets are the limit. Anti-gravity is nonsense and need not be researched, and we should be content to send satellites out and wait tens of thousands of years for them to return, when no one who sent them out would be alive to care. So yes, figuratively, the sky is the limit according to people like you. There’s no Heaven outside of deGrasse’s magic universe.
10) Just Visiting this Planet
A collection of six years from a Q & A column written monthly for Star Date Magazine. Sequel to Merlin’s Tour of the Universe (see below) that contains chapters of questions about astronomy and space asked by the general public and answered through the pen name “Merlin.”
Have the majority of your 340,000 Twitter followers have read at least a quarter of this book?
11) Universe Down to Earth
Essays on special topics in astronomy that evolved principally from invited talks and lectures delivered for introductory college astronomy classes at Columbia University, University of Maryland, and University of Texas. The book uses creative “household” analogies to help bring complex topics of the universe to the lay reader.
Did anyone notice that word “evolved” in the description? And none of your previous books or any other books already explain these things sufficiently Neil, or is there something special about what you have to say?
12) Merlin’s Tour of the Universe
Thirteen chapters of questions about astronomy and space asked by the general public and answered through the pen name “Merlin.”
Neil sure likes to associate Mainstream Science and himself with pagan magic (while hypocritically ignoring pagan religion too). What’s that say about him and the likely million liberals and atheists who support him?
Neil also listed countless articles he’s written. Can you guess which topic who wrote on? Just more magical beliefs and obscure facts mixed in with arrogant and progress-damaging, life-damaging myths I’m sure.
But that’s not the end of the tragedy of Neil. Neil also lists all the astronomy-related grants he’s been awarded, millions of dollars worth. Millions of liberal dollars have been wasted on his useless fantasies and obscurae:
PI National Science Foundation (2010: 36 months) Informal Science Education: “StarTalk Radio Show”. Using a comedic co-host and with weekly guests drawn from pop-culture, this broadcast (and Internet) radio talk show on science targets an audience that never thought to listen to science on the radio.
PI National Science Foundation (2009: 12 months) Informal Science Education – Small Grants for Exploratory Research: “StarTalk Radio Show – Pilots”. 13 radio talk show pilot programs broadcast live in DC and LA, experimenting with various guests and co-hosts for how best to bring the universe to listeners would not otherwise think to listed to science. on the radio.
Co-I NASA (2003: 24 months) Hubble Treasury Program: “COSMOS 2-degree field”, Large scale structure of the universe at high redshift.
Co-I NASA (2001: 18 months) “The Search for Life: Are We Alone?”, The second space show to run in the newly rebuilt Hayden Planetarium.
Co-PI NASA (October 2000 – September 2003) “New York City Space Science Research Alliance”, creating a new space science degree in the City University of New York.
Co-PI National Science Foundation (October 1999 – September 2002) “Visualization of High Dimensional Data in Comparative Morphology”
PI National Science Foundation (May 1999 – September 2003) Partner in the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium Administered by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, Urbana Ill.
Co-I & Project Director NASA (September 1997 – March 1999) Digital Galaxy Project—Part of the $8 million launch of the National Center for Science Literacy Education and Technology at the American Museum of Natural History
PI Science Foundation (July 1993 – December 1994) to study the Galactic Bulge: Structure and Dynamics and Dwarf Galaxies: Star Formation, Supernovae, and Detection
ARCS Foundation, New York City (January 1989 – December 1990) Intergalactic Supernovae
Total wasted: $10,918,000. Almost $11 million given to him to, to what? Did any of this money help anyone make any new scientific discoveries that have helped anyone to spiritually improve, to become more self-controlled and enjoy life better, or help anyone else in that way? Sure, he probably used some of this money to create a few jobs and pay people for telescopes and to make buildings, and how useful was that and how helpful now is it going to be that he’s created money-sinkholes, in which money keeps going to him and his propagandist friends and away from the hungry bellies of kids? A good recycling factory that takes tires from cars in junkyards and recycles them into ground covering for deserts to make parks would be more beneficial and prevent soil erosion and mudslides and alleviate the damage done to those walking on what would otherwise be hard desert ground. Neil is a perfect pawn for Satan and NWO masterminds to drain away money from and turn it against the people they wish to dominate, using their money to dumb them down and keep them blind.
And if Neil, you actually took your own advice rather than merely pretending that you want others to search out all the facts rather than just believe your beliefs, and bothered to read this refutation of your life, you may be thinking, “Oh he called me fraud and con artist, why that’s libel and slander and defamation.” You deserve defamation, you should be defamed, because you don’t deserve it anymore than a criminal does who successfully robs millions from others by pretending he has a cure for their pains and has successfully healed anyone of them with that cure. I can believe that you aren’t a deliberate liar or thief, but heavily deluded, very arrogant, or worst, a narcissist, if there were some evidence for that. But since you yourself say that people should seek out information about what they believe rather than just believing (why was it so hard for you to say “faith”?), then what excuse do you have for not doing so, and focusing narrowly on astronomy and war?
The atheist dominated propaganda encyclopedia, Wikipedia, calls Neil a, “astrophysicist and science communicator.” Period. That’s it. Not even “popularizer of science” like they bestow on their other god Carl Sagan (which by the way is vague and misleading; it should say “Mainstream Science”). So, a fantasy chasing-nay-saying, smug, though not overly-smug, and a fault-finder, a know-nothing who said that he is against “beliefs” and didn’t have the wisdom to say, “I meant mere faith,” to correct himself, is a renown hero to hundreds of thousands of atheists and liberals. Would they do so if rather than speaking with a calm, self-assured, and contented tone, he spoke like a drugged out Hippie, saying in his sentences, “Yeah man, like, beliefs, well like man, like, like, like I don’t like that word beliefs man, cuz like, cuz like you gotta research first man, like then you can, I mean then it’s okay to have beliefs, like yeah you can believe science, like yeah man.” Cheech and Chong have a total of 18,971 Twitter followers.
“Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears Yahweh is to be praised.” says Proverbs 31:30. I wonder if any humble, hard working, God-loving women on Twitter have even 18,971 “followers”. They are probably to busy with their real jobs to bother with Twitter much.
”Evil Bible”? What Anti-Christians Conveniently Ignore
The Waldenses of Valdese (Waldenses or Waldensians were a Christian group who believed in abstaining from riches whom Catholics eventually tried to exterminate for not submitting to the Pope):
Who Were the Waldenses? (This is a Catholic’s website)
Why Do the Dutch Wear Orange?
The Dutch Connection of the Pilgrim Fathers
An Atheist Fable: Reopening the Galileo Case
The Reformation (the font on this page is small and the page font needs to be enlarged to read easily)
The Great Gravity Probe B Hoax: More Evolutionist Fraud