Sorry, but I wasn't saying I wanted to kill you, just that the discussion should be civil, like between friends. But you have no arguments just personal attacks. Should I guess where your compassion comes from, why you are such a zealot for hate? How many people have you wanted to kill on this subject? It's easy to track.
I did like this comment from a code discussion:
Scientific method is for research, and it involves devising theories that make sense.
If you would only apply your logic to the religion of evolution maybe we could advance science.
So, in order to prove gravity, you are requiring us to show you where every object in the entire universe drops towards planets/items with greater mass at particular speeds? Not just showing that occurs and showing how it is consistent every time we look at it, but show you every single object in the universe? Because that's about as likely as what you're asking (approximately, not exactly).
Please do not compare things like gravity, that are observable and measurable, to evolution, it is not scientific. We need to apply the same scientific standards to evolution not give it a pass.
Evolution has been shown to happen, we have SEEN species that have evolved into other species over time.
Please show the fossil record for the mutations of any species, any at all, from one animal to another. This would be all over the news if it existed. Darwin predicted there should be thousands for any single animal. There are only nodes on the tree chart without the evidence of the branch connections.
But no matter how many times we look and no matter how many fossils are discovered, there is never any evidence AGAINST evolution.
There is the cell. It's been around for 3.5 billion years, as per evolutionists. It has factories in it such as a DNA sequencer, molecular folder, transport mechanisms, along with the programming data to run everything. Assuming that the Earth is a little over 3.5 billion years old, when exactly did this irreducibly complex structure evolve, or even have time to evolve?
Now I've heard evolutionists explain that there are no irreducibly complex structures. Some how a more complex structure boot strapped the process. This makes absolutely no sense when discussing the cell at the beginning of the Earth. What more complex structure, that could have evolved into the less complex cell, existed then? How was the control programming randomly written? You ever try to write a random program for something like an assembly line? It is just too ridiculous for reasonable people to accept.
You have free will and can believe in the religion of evolution if you want, but it is not science.
The only way to 'prove' to a lot of people who give the argument that you do that a specific creature evolved from another specific creature is to have a PERFECT fossil record that contains every individual between the first creature and the second. That will NEVER happen because of the physical reality that fossils are not common.
And that is what sceince requires, the proof. Otherwise we are not buying into the religion of evolution. Sorry.
Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution.
That's a strange statement. Belief is a religios concept. Science is dirived from the scientific method where things are proven such that no belief is required. Gravity can be measured and observed. The Electron Theory can be measured and observed. But evolution still requires belief. Do you believe that all the missing fossil evidence will be found someday? Or, do you disbelieve all the evidence found by molecular biologists that the cell itself is irreducibly complex and can not possibly have evolved?
Ummm, the latter is exactly what evolution is. Mutations occur, the resulting changes are either propogated because they provide some objective benefit, removed from the system because they are detrimental, or become part of the background noise of genetic variation if they are neither harmful nor beneficial.
So where are the mutations in the fossil record? 120 years ago Darwin said we could discard his theory if we didn't find the fossils. Millions of fossils later we don't have the evidence. There should be thousands of mutations per species and yet only nodes exist on evolutionary diagrams.
How many mutations does it take to go from land to sea dwelling? One mathematician roughly calculated a minimum of 50,000. You ask Evolutionists what the average time for a mutation is and they will avoid the question like the plague. When you factor in the time it would take for all the creatures on the Earth to evolve you run out of time. The Earth is only so old. Then Evolutions move the problem off Earth to gain more time, but they don't say how long the alien's planet existed. lol This is science?
Carl Sagan told us that Molecular Biology would show us the truth. And it has. They can now look into the cell itself. Inside the cell are multiple factories such as a DNA sequencer and molecular folding machines, along with transport facilities. The cell's factories are controlled by programming instructions, intelligent data. Have you ever tried to program anything via random mutation? Good luck with that. The cell itself is irreducibly complex. Molecular biologist must tell themselves, "this is not designed, this is not designed," because they can now see the design.
Evolution requires belief in things unseen which is a definition of religion. And I'm thinking that you don't want religion taught in public schools. Science should follow the scientific method, not a belief system.
There are no surprises here. Netflix doesn't do much for you anyway. Try to complain about anything you haven't rented and you won't even find a contact form. lol They say you can watch stuff on line but only with propriatry Silverlight, guess that leaves me out. I canceled their subscription.
Guess they're a bit clueless at CNN. Has anyone seen a Software Engineering job posting that didn't require a degree? I haven't and some require a Masters. Have even seen Electronic Tech jobs requiring a degree. Want a software job? Go to college, get good grades and then maybe, just maybe, you can get into a good software job. But I should tell you that the other Software Engineers I knew who had degrees were still having difficulties finding work. People like myself with decades of experience and no degree are pretty much out of luck.
Thousands of dollars worth of records were lost of my mother's. Shouldn't have left them with the doctors. Extra tests were required because of the missing records, costing more money. Guess she was the exception unless her's weren't the only records lost.
So we should boycott those companies because they support this new law that doesn't use Due Process. You can accuse websites and have them removed from the DNS. Or, you can post copyrighted material to sites you don't like to take them down. Because of the way the "law" is written, it is an attack mechanism and has nothing to do with piracy. Sounds similar to the Patriot Act in scope. Eventually you'll be able to use The Bill of Rights for toilet paper with laws like these.
According to the law it is about taking out websites you don't like. That is how it is implemented. Post somebody's copyrighted material on the site you don't like and then take it out. Or, just make the accusation, which is good enough to remove them from DNS, at least temporarily. No Due Process needed.
We already pay taxes for roads. I'm headed to the kitchen to get more tinfoil before you tell me I need to pay more. LOL How about we stop spending more that we take in? If anyone of us had used our credit cards like Congress spends, we'd already have been through bankruptcy and or in jail.
higher oil prices (yeah, this may not be in their control...)
What if you kept adding to the money supply with Quantitative Easing? The price of oil is tied to U.S. dollars. Increase the supply of dollars and the price of oil has to go up. Of course this applies to anyone buying oil so you can export inflation globally. Counterfeiters are only locked up because they don't work at the FED.
No belief is required when the proof is readably available. So I'll restate belief. Belief is faith in things unmeasurable and or having no obvious effect.
By your previous comment, you have defined belief to exclude anything supported by any kind of evidence. So, why should I see belief as anything other than irrational?
I call my it my religious belief, but do understand that others consider it an irrational belief. It's always been that way.
The point is that anything with any relevance in our world will have a measurable effect, even if it is not visible to the naked eye.
That is pure opinion. It requires that I believe you can measure anything, with current technology, for it to achieve relevance.
Actually, I never said "measurable with today's technology", but if you claim to believe in an X, which never in any way effects anything, then X is irrelevant. If X affects Y, but Y cannot be proven in any way to exist or to affect anything, then X is still irrelevant.
I don't think X has no effect. In fact, the reason people believe in God is because they feel it has a large effect in people's lives.
Consider Newtonian Physics. Newton came up with formulas that, for the first time, modeled orbital bodies. Then we get to the 20th century and go to the moon, but we can't use Newton's equations without the X of Einstein's Space Time Relativity math. The differences are very very small but important. Only recently were we able to create an experiment that physically proved Einstein's theory. There are even smaller things, such as hidden subatomic particles, that may increase our understanding of gravity and even allow us to manipulate it someday. That X, that we don't know about, may have the biggest beneficial effect in all of human history.
Knowledge increases at a linear rate when compared with what we do not know, which increases at an exponential rate. For every new discovery a scientist makes, the finding will generate at least another 10 questions. As civilization advances, humanity becomes less smart as a percentage of knowledge.
Not true. If "the things we don't know" could be quantified, they would not depend on our ability to recognize them. In other words, someone who doesn't know anything about computers may not realize that they also don't know how to write a shell script, how to use microsoft office, or how to check an email. I would say that there are at least five things this person doesn't know.
What a computer is
How to write a shell script
how to use microsoft office
how to check an email
This person also doesn't know that these pieces of information exist
By learning a little about computers, someone is removing items 1 and 5 from the list. I would say that this person is not adding items 2,3,and 4.
Even if the list was finite, which it is not, the hierarchy is not. Let's add some branches.
For each item you remove, N items are added to the unknown knowledge category. This happens as a person traverses the hierarchy and drills down. The branches exist even if we choose to ignore them. An individual may choose to stop learning, but humanity continues onward. The growth of unknown knowledge appears exponential even in this small list. If you graph percentage of what is known and unknown over time it is very discouraging.
It should be noted that, in the real world, there are many invisible branches in the knowle
Funny how the definition you linked doesn't say "requires no proof" or anything close to it.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: That's not close? The example for 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. Seems pretty clear. What empirical proof did they have that the earth was flat?
Suppose you are talking with a friend while waiting for an elevator. Your friend is distract by your intelligent discourse and the door opens. Opps, there's no elevator but your friend proceeds to board the elevator. Would you try to save your friend or keep the information to yourself?
.then you can't use it for a "belief" that the elevator isn't working.
Guess you didn't understand. I was asking whether you would save a friend if they were in danger, not whether you believed the elevator was working or non-working. The word "belief" is not even used in the above context. As you said previously, this is some kind of trap if you answer, I'll explain. Basically, I was curious if you had compassion for others and would intercede if you felt it was important? While no one can claim this is just a Christian concept it is something the Bible does teach. Is it still a trap to answer? Would you consider Christian compassion an anchor around society's neck?
Both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were world renown scientists of their era. And, yes I know that Ben was Deist in his youth, but he got better. lol. Jefferson certainly had doubts, like anyone else, otherwise he would not have told us to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." There are also times when he did not doubt.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
Here's another [quote] that shows how the founding fathers were NOT eager to shove Christianity down everyone's throats. [your quote from Jefferson]
They certainly wouldn't be Christians if they tried. People have to make up their own mind. When God's protection for the U.S. finally disappears, from all the people rejecting Him, the freedoms we enjoy will disappear also. That's what happens when you lose your anchor. But, this could be you're utopia, who knows?
Well, that's it for me. It's obvious neither of us will be changing our minds. The last word is yours if you want it.
Later
Belief requires no proof, I will never accept your redefinition of it, nor should anyone else. You certainly may follow whatever religion you choose. In the U.S., our First Amendment rights allow you to follow your beliefs freely. And the Declaration of Independence plainly states, that your rights come from our Creator, Kind of ironic. You may even believe there is no god OR that there are cosmic unicorns, neither of which would require proof to be a religion. In fact, if there were hard evidence of unicorns we could state categorically that no belief in them is necessary.
Belief is required in religion, proof is required by science. These concepts DO NOT cross over no matter how much you wish them to.
90+ percent of the Forefathers believed in the Bible and were Christians. Thomas Jefferson carried the words of Christ in his pocket through out his adult life. He considered them the purist teachings of Christianity. Funny you should bring him up.
Christianity was our moral foundation which is why Congress ordered Bibles printed and distributed to Americans twice, Congress always opened with prayer, and church services were held in the Congress building on Sundays up until the Civil War Reconstruction. It is our American heritage.
I don't believe in black holes. They exist because of scientific evidence that shows their orbits, masses, and light distortion properties. No belief is required when the proof is readably available. So I'll restate belief. Belief is faith in things unmeasurable and or having no obvious effect.
The point is that anything with any relevance in our world will have a measurable effect, even if it is not visible to the naked eye.
That is pure opinion. It requires that I believe you can measure anything, with current technology, for it to achieve relevance. There's no way that can be true. Consider what we could measure in the 1400s, 1700s, 2000s and what technology will exist in the 2200s. Are there things that do not exist now because we will learn of them in a century? Do they have no relevance because current science can not measure them?
Knowledge increases at a linear rate when compared with what we do not know, which increases at an exponential rate. For every new discovery a scientist makes, the finding will generate at least another 10 questions. As civilization advances, humanity becomes less smart as a percentage of knowledge. It is a very humbling experience.
So, you can ask for evidence all you want. You'll just never get it in some areas, especially where God requires belief. And, if you do get evidence, it will likely come too late.
You did not answer the question. Pick any hypothetical situation you want, where you could save someone, and tell me if you would warn them or let them perish.
So you have to have empirical evidence to "believe" a religious claim. If there were empirical evidence, that would prove the claim and it would be a scientific fact. Surely you understand that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Belief that there is no God is also a religion as you can not prove such an entity doesn't exist. Certainly you're not going to tell me you've travelled the universe and can provide us with empirical data from the trip. Once you believe there is no God, no absolute right or wrong, you quickly realize that every thing is relative. In that world, your opinion is just as valid as mass murderer or serial rapist, your life is completely pointless, and there is nothing to look forward to. These people become so miserable they try to convince others to suffer with them. It is incredibly sad.
I'm am certainly glad most of our Forefathers did believe in God. It allowed them to create the most successful form of government in the history of man and all based on the Bible. Weren't the Forefathers critical thinking people?
On the other hand, the Republican Party is at this point completely taken over by megacorporate interests,
Like letting GE write their own legislation so they don't pay any tax. Or, setting the payouts for Fannie and Freddie to UNLIMITED? Or, continually rewarding friends on Wall Street for failure. Unlimited payouts means unlimited corruption. Sure seems like the current guy has "magacorporate" interests. Which party got all that legislation through?
What you'll find with corruption is that it is a see-saw which swings back and forth. Since 1776 it has been a war. When one side becomes too corrupt American's swing the other way. It is a check and balance the Forefathers didn't plan for but turned out well.
Slashdot Mirror
Voters are longing for the day of the $600 hammer.
West Virginia hosted the Kind of Pork, Sen Robert Byrd. The ex-Klan leader skimmed billions for WV, here's the list.
Well said.
Sorry, but I wasn't saying I wanted to kill you, just that the discussion should be civil, like between friends. But you have no arguments just personal attacks. Should I guess where your compassion comes from, why you are such a zealot for hate? How many people have you wanted to kill on this subject? It's easy to track.
I did like this comment from a code discussion:
Scientific method is for research, and it involves devising theories that make sense.
If you would only apply your logic to the religion of evolution maybe we could advance science.
So, in order to prove gravity, you are requiring us to show you where every object in the entire universe drops towards planets/items with greater mass at particular speeds? Not just showing that occurs and showing how it is consistent every time we look at it, but show you every single object in the universe? Because that's about as likely as what you're asking (approximately, not exactly).
Please do not compare things like gravity, that are observable and measurable, to evolution, it is not scientific. We need to apply the same scientific standards to evolution not give it a pass.
Evolution has been shown to happen, we have SEEN species that have evolved into other species over time.
Please show the fossil record for the mutations of any species, any at all, from one animal to another. This would be all over the news if it existed. Darwin predicted there should be thousands for any single animal. There are only nodes on the tree chart without the evidence of the branch connections.
But no matter how many times we look and no matter how many fossils are discovered, there is never any evidence AGAINST evolution.
There is the cell. It's been around for 3.5 billion years, as per evolutionists. It has factories in it such as a DNA sequencer, molecular folder, transport mechanisms, along with the programming data to run everything. Assuming that the Earth is a little over 3.5 billion years old, when exactly did this irreducibly complex structure evolve, or even have time to evolve?
Now I've heard evolutionists explain that there are no irreducibly complex structures. Some how a more complex structure boot strapped the process. This makes absolutely no sense when discussing the cell at the beginning of the Earth. What more complex structure, that could have evolved into the less complex cell, existed then? How was the control programming randomly written? You ever try to write a random program for something like an assembly line? It is just too ridiculous for reasonable people to accept.
You have free will and can believe in the religion of evolution if you want, but it is not science.
I consider you my friend.
The only way to 'prove' to a lot of people who give the argument that you do that a specific creature evolved from another specific creature is to have a PERFECT fossil record that contains every individual between the first creature and the second. That will NEVER happen because of the physical reality that fossils are not common.
And that is what sceince requires, the proof. Otherwise we are not buying into the religion of evolution. Sorry.
Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution.
That's a strange statement. Belief is a religios concept. Science is dirived from the scientific method where things are proven such that no belief is required. Gravity can be measured and observed. The Electron Theory can be measured and observed. But evolution still requires belief. Do you believe that all the missing fossil evidence will be found someday? Or, do you disbelieve all the evidence found by molecular biologists that the cell itself is irreducibly complex and can not possibly have evolved?
Ummm, the latter is exactly what evolution is. Mutations occur, the resulting changes are either propogated because they provide some objective benefit, removed from the system because they are detrimental, or become part of the background noise of genetic variation if they are neither harmful nor beneficial.
So where are the mutations in the fossil record? 120 years ago Darwin said we could discard his theory if we didn't find the fossils. Millions of fossils later we don't have the evidence. There should be thousands of mutations per species and yet only nodes exist on evolutionary diagrams.
How many mutations does it take to go from land to sea dwelling? One mathematician roughly calculated a minimum of 50,000. You ask Evolutionists what the average time for a mutation is and they will avoid the question like the plague. When you factor in the time it would take for all the creatures on the Earth to evolve you run out of time. The Earth is only so old. Then Evolutions move the problem off Earth to gain more time, but they don't say how long the alien's planet existed. lol This is science?
Carl Sagan told us that Molecular Biology would show us the truth. And it has. They can now look into the cell itself. Inside the cell are multiple factories such as a DNA sequencer and molecular folding machines, along with transport facilities. The cell's factories are controlled by programming instructions, intelligent data. Have you ever tried to program anything via random mutation? Good luck with that. The cell itself is irreducibly complex. Molecular biologist must tell themselves, "this is not designed, this is not designed," because they can now see the design.
Evolution requires belief in things unseen which is a definition of religion. And I'm thinking that you don't want religion taught in public schools. Science should follow the scientific method, not a belief system.
Bill Maher? He hates women last time I checked. He's called them ever name in the book.
I understand your hatred of the Christian right, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were just horrible weren't they?
There are no surprises here. Netflix doesn't do much for you anyway. Try to complain about anything you haven't rented and you won't even find a contact form. lol They say you can watch stuff on line but only with propriatry Silverlight, guess that leaves me out. I canceled their subscription.
Ignore all that stuff and VOTE OBAMA.
You lost me, who pays for things? If it's not the consumer then who?
Guess they're a bit clueless at CNN. Has anyone seen a Software Engineering job posting that didn't require a degree? I haven't and some require a Masters. Have even seen Electronic Tech jobs requiring a degree. Want a software job? Go to college, get good grades and then maybe, just maybe, you can get into a good software job. But I should tell you that the other Software Engineers I knew who had degrees were still having difficulties finding work. People like myself with decades of experience and no degree are pretty much out of luck.
Thousands of dollars worth of records were lost of my mother's. Shouldn't have left them with the doctors. Extra tests were required because of the missing records, costing more money. Guess she was the exception unless her's weren't the only records lost.
So we should boycott those companies because they support this new law that doesn't use Due Process. You can accuse websites and have them removed from the DNS. Or, you can post copyrighted material to sites you don't like to take them down. Because of the way the "law" is written, it is an attack mechanism and has nothing to do with piracy. Sounds similar to the Patriot Act in scope. Eventually you'll be able to use The Bill of Rights for toilet paper with laws like these.
According to the law it is about taking out websites you don't like. That is how it is implemented. Post somebody's copyrighted material on the site you don't like and then take it out. Or, just make the accusation, which is good enough to remove them from DNS, at least temporarily. No Due Process needed.
I'd like to see TSA's waiver for the Fourth Amendment.
We already pay taxes for roads. I'm headed to the kitchen to get more tinfoil before you tell me I need to pay more. LOL How about we stop spending more that we take in? If anyone of us had used our credit cards like Congress spends, we'd already have been through bankruptcy and or in jail.
higher oil prices (yeah, this may not be in their control...)
What if you kept adding to the money supply with Quantitative Easing? The price of oil is tied to U.S. dollars. Increase the supply of dollars and the price of oil has to go up. Of course this applies to anyone buying oil so you can export inflation globally. Counterfeiters are only locked up because they don't work at the FED.
No belief is required when the proof is readably available. So I'll restate belief. Belief is faith in things unmeasurable and or having no obvious effect.
By your previous comment, you have defined belief to exclude anything supported by any kind of evidence. So, why should I see belief as anything other than irrational?
I call my it my religious belief, but do understand that others consider it an irrational belief. It's always been that way.
The point is that anything with any relevance in our world will have a measurable effect, even if it is not visible to the naked eye.
That is pure opinion. It requires that I believe you can measure anything, with current technology, for it to achieve relevance.
Actually, I never said "measurable with today's technology", but if you claim to believe in an X, which never in any way effects anything, then X is irrelevant. If X affects Y, but Y cannot be proven in any way to exist or to affect anything, then X is still irrelevant.
I don't think X has no effect. In fact, the reason people believe in God is because they feel it has a large effect in people's lives.
Consider Newtonian Physics. Newton came up with formulas that, for the first time, modeled orbital bodies. Then we get to the 20th century and go to the moon, but we can't use Newton's equations without the X of Einstein's Space Time Relativity math. The differences are very very small but important. Only recently were we able to create an experiment that physically proved Einstein's theory. There are even smaller things, such as hidden subatomic particles, that may increase our understanding of gravity and even allow us to manipulate it someday. That X, that we don't know about, may have the biggest beneficial effect in all of human history.
Knowledge increases at a linear rate when compared with what we do not know, which increases at an exponential rate. For every new discovery a scientist makes, the finding will generate at least another 10 questions. As civilization advances, humanity becomes less smart as a percentage of knowledge.
Not true. If "the things we don't know" could be quantified, they would not depend on our ability to recognize them. In other words, someone who doesn't know anything about computers may not realize that they also don't know how to write a shell script, how to use microsoft office, or how to check an email. I would say that there are at least five things this person doesn't know.
By learning a little about computers, someone is removing items 1 and 5 from the list. I would say that this person is not adding items 2,3,and 4.
Even if the list was finite, which it is not, the hierarchy is not. Let's add some branches.
_Computers
___Servers
_____Web
_____Disk
_____Database
___Desktops
___Laptops
___Embedded
_Shell
___Bash
_____Builtins
_____Variables
_____Redirection
___Ash
___Zsh
_Office
___Basic Formatting
___Headings
___Tables
_____Merging cells
_____Repeating column heads
___Syles
For each item you remove, N items are added to the unknown knowledge category. This happens as a person traverses the hierarchy and drills down. The branches exist even if we choose to ignore them. An individual may choose to stop learning, but humanity continues onward. The growth of unknown knowledge appears exponential even in this small list. If you graph percentage of what is known and unknown over time it is very discouraging.
It should be noted that, in the real world, there are many invisible branches in the knowle
Funny how the definition you linked doesn't say "requires no proof" or anything close to it.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: That's not close? The example for 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. Seems pretty clear. What empirical proof did they have that the earth was flat?
Suppose you are talking with a friend while waiting for an elevator. Your friend is distract by your intelligent discourse and the door opens. Opps, there's no elevator but your friend proceeds to board the elevator. Would you try to save your friend or keep the information to yourself?
.then you can't use it for a "belief" that the elevator isn't working.
Guess you didn't understand. I was asking whether you would save a friend if they were in danger, not whether you believed the elevator was working or non-working. The word "belief" is not even used in the above context. As you said previously, this is some kind of trap if you answer, I'll explain. Basically, I was curious if you had compassion for others and would intercede if you felt it was important? While no one can claim this is just a Christian concept it is something the Bible does teach. Is it still a trap to answer? Would you consider Christian compassion an anchor around society's neck?
Both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were world renown scientists of their era. And, yes I know that Ben was Deist in his youth, but he got better. lol. Jefferson certainly had doubts, like anyone else, otherwise he would not have told us to "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." There are also times when he did not doubt.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
Here's another [quote] that shows how the founding fathers were NOT eager to shove Christianity down everyone's throats. [your quote from Jefferson]
They certainly wouldn't be Christians if they tried. People have to make up their own mind. When God's protection for the U.S. finally disappears, from all the people rejecting Him, the freedoms we enjoy will disappear also. That's what happens when you lose your anchor. But, this could be you're utopia, who knows?
Well, that's it for me. It's obvious neither of us will be changing our minds. The last word is yours if you want it.
Later
Belief requires no proof, I will never accept your redefinition of it, nor should anyone else. You certainly may follow whatever religion you choose. In the U.S., our First Amendment rights allow you to follow your beliefs freely. And the Declaration of Independence plainly states, that your rights come from our Creator, Kind of ironic. You may even believe there is no god OR that there are cosmic unicorns, neither of which would require proof to be a religion. In fact, if there were hard evidence of unicorns we could state categorically that no belief in them is necessary.
Belief is required in religion, proof is required by science. These concepts DO NOT cross over no matter how much you wish them to.
90+ percent of the Forefathers believed in the Bible and were Christians. Thomas Jefferson carried the words of Christ in his pocket through out his adult life. He considered them the purist teachings of Christianity. Funny you should bring him up.
Christianity was our moral foundation which is why Congress ordered Bibles printed and distributed to Americans twice, Congress always opened with prayer, and church services were held in the Congress building on Sundays up until the Civil War Reconstruction. It is our American heritage.
I don't believe in black holes. They exist because of scientific evidence that shows their orbits, masses, and light distortion properties. No belief is required when the proof is readably available. So I'll restate belief. Belief is faith in things unmeasurable and or having no obvious effect.
The point is that anything with any relevance in our world will have a measurable effect, even if it is not visible to the naked eye.
That is pure opinion. It requires that I believe you can measure anything, with current technology, for it to achieve relevance. There's no way that can be true. Consider what we could measure in the 1400s, 1700s, 2000s and what technology will exist in the 2200s. Are there things that do not exist now because we will learn of them in a century? Do they have no relevance because current science can not measure them?
Knowledge increases at a linear rate when compared with what we do not know, which increases at an exponential rate. For every new discovery a scientist makes, the finding will generate at least another 10 questions. As civilization advances, humanity becomes less smart as a percentage of knowledge. It is a very humbling experience.
So, you can ask for evidence all you want. You'll just never get it in some areas, especially where God requires belief. And, if you do get evidence, it will likely come too late.
You did not answer the question. Pick any hypothetical situation you want, where you could save someone, and tell me if you would warn them or let them perish.
So you have to have empirical evidence to "believe" a religious claim. If there were empirical evidence, that would prove the claim and it would be a scientific fact. Surely you understand that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Belief that there is no God is also a religion as you can not prove such an entity doesn't exist. Certainly you're not going to tell me you've travelled the universe and can provide us with empirical data from the trip. Once you believe there is no God, no absolute right or wrong, you quickly realize that every thing is relative. In that world, your opinion is just as valid as mass murderer or serial rapist, your life is completely pointless, and there is nothing to look forward to. These people become so miserable they try to convince others to suffer with them. It is incredibly sad.
I'm am certainly glad most of our Forefathers did believe in God. It allowed them to create the most successful form of government in the history of man and all based on the Bible. Weren't the Forefathers critical thinking people?
On the other hand, the Republican Party is at this point completely taken over by megacorporate interests,
Like letting GE write their own legislation so they don't pay any tax. Or, setting the payouts for Fannie and Freddie to UNLIMITED? Or, continually rewarding friends on Wall Street for failure. Unlimited payouts means unlimited corruption. Sure seems like the current guy has "magacorporate" interests. Which party got all that legislation through?
What you'll find with corruption is that it is a see-saw which swings back and forth. Since 1776 it has been a war. When one side becomes too corrupt American's swing the other way. It is a check and balance the Forefathers didn't plan for but turned out well.