Trump Truly Is On A Mission From God!!!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the movie, The Blues Brothers John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd played two blues musicians who said they were “on a mission from God.” Well, I believe Trump is truly on a mission from God to fix this country and get it back on the right track. How else can you explain everything that is happening?
From the first day he and Melania came down that escalator in Trump Tower, the entire media was against him, the entire democrat party was against him, half of the Republican party was against him, they rigged an election to be against him and he still won. After he got in office they threw everything in the book at him and hit him with abuse after abuse including this phony fairy tale of Russian collusion and nothing sticks.
Since he got in Trump removed the shackles of big government control from us and by eliminating 800 of Obama’s job-killing regulations he freed us to be the best we can be. He has lowered the business tax from 35% to 21% and lowered the small business tax from 21% to 15% thus causing businesses to hire more and businesses overseas are coming back here to build. U.S. Steel is coming back and building six brand new plants here, car companies are coming back and building plants in North and South Carolina, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Trump’s policies have created 4 million jobs in 20 months. Obama was minus four million in the same time in his administration. Out of those jobs, 650,000 are manufacturing jobs and 32,000 were just created in October. That means 1000 manufacturing jobs a day. These are the jobs Obama said were never coming back, “What’s Trump going to do? Wave his magic wand?” Obama said sarcastically. Well I guess he found the magic wand because now they are all coming back.
The economy is roaring and the best economy we’ve ever had. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American unemployment is the lowest in history, women ’s unemployment is the lowest in 65 years. Unemployment in general is the lowest in 50 years. More people are working than ever before and there are more jobs available than people looking. Our GDP has risen to over 4.2% after Obama said we would have to get used to seeing 2.5 % as the new norm.
(Article Continues Below Advertisement)
Trump has issued a massive tax cut where a single person has a $12,000 tax deduction and a married couple has a $25,000 tax deduction and he is issuing another 10% tax deduction for the middle class. Recently 250 companies gave their employees one and two thousand dollar bonuses that Nancy Pelosi called “crumbs” and now the Dems want their crumbs back. Trump also lowered the FICA tax so people will have more money in their paychecks and lowered the tax on all wine and beer products.
Recently Trump had rock and country and soul stars Mike Love from the Beach boys, Kid Rock, Sam Malone from Sam and Dave and country singer John Rich from Big and Rich at the white house to sign legislation that would give them the back royalties they were owed that managers and record companies etc. kept from them.
When Trump went to Asia he was the first president to visit and dine in the Forbidden City and made 300 billion dollars in deals that will benefit both countries.
Before Trump became president China and North Korea were planning on going to war with us, our military was depleted to pre-WW11 status and Kim was firing missiles over Japan and Guam and building nukes. Trump was able to diffuse that situation and met with kim and now he is denuclearizing. Trump also decertified the horrendous Iran deal Obama got us into and froze all Iranian assets and put sanctions on them.
(Article Continues Below Advertisement)
Trump is building our military to be the biggest and best yet and has ordered the Pentagon to go ahead with plans for the fifth branch of our military, known as “The Space Force.” He has also arranged for our vets to be able to see their own doctor and the government will pay for it rather than having them wait weeks and months to see a VA doctor. Trump also called the heads of the pharmaceutical companies to have them lower the cost of prescription drugs.
Remember when protestors in past administrations protested against the Keystone pipeline? Trump got it going and created 43,000 jobs because of it. Remember when they protested drilling in Anwar? Trump has them drilling there now.
When Trump has his rallies like he was doing all this and last month he would get tens of thousands attending. So many that they would have giant screens outside for the overflow. When he was in Houston over 100,000 attended. There were 21,000 on the inside and another 80,000 outside watching him on a giant screen. Last week when he was in Ohio he had a rally at an airport hangar where several thousand attended and they had to fill another hanger for the overflow. He attracts more crowds than most rock stars.
This is a movement like no other and is unprecedented. This is only part and partial of over 280 accomplishments Trump has accrued in just 20 months, more than all the presidents put together. Yes, Trump truly is on a mission from God. How else can you explain it otherwise?
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
The Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives, with full subpoena power. Trump is about to catch hell.
Democrats just announced that they will go after Trump's tax returns as soon as they take power.
A meaningless attempt.
1. Trump has no legal obligation to provide them no matter what Dems try
2. Trump’s returns will show them nothing of interest. Most of his income on his personal return comes from K-1s which merely indicate how much money he received from profits or negative income from business losses. It will NOT show any detailed info from those businesses.
so keep wasting time on something you will never get
it shows the wisdom of FDR and JFK who also refused to make public their tax returns
That depends on what a court will rule.
.
LOL.
Yeah but the court stacking will go in overdrive.
I don't think the Republicans will do that, but they could...
They already did that by refusing to consider Obama's nominees.
No they didn't. You are wrong.
I think you underestimate them.
Nah. I just understand how the Senate works. Most Democrats don't.
That is exactly the opposite of what they should do.
The D party should use this opportunity to show the American people that they deserve to lead. Playing partisan politics is a mistake.
The R party screwed up on its midterm surge under Obama by failing to deliver on campaign promises. Pursuing pure partisan negativity rather than working positively for the people would be worse than that.
Ah, condescension. Then you would understand it is exactly the only thing they have been trying to do all the last of their working year.
I also understand norms and when they are forsaken. Will never be forgotten.
I disagree a little. The republicans never seem to lose support. With Pelosi in charge for two years, the republicans will have a shot at taking back the house.
They will do nothing but attack her the whole time and the blind will always vote against their own interests.
Not sure how to parse that. Candidly, do you think it is wise for the D party to go after Trump's tax returns and/or other clearly negative partisan initiatives rather than do positive work for the people per their constitutional obligations?
Honestly, I think they are screwed either way.
Edit. I think it is a lost cause, so I say expose the fraud for what he is.
No matter what, the republicans seem to vote in force. Right now the Democrats have no viable candidate for President. Most republicans vote straight party line.
The way things are going, trump will win again and probably take back the house in 2020.
Most people are that stupid.
My position is that most of the electorate are apathetic, ill-informed and creatures of habit.
From the guy who says:
Republicans never seem to lose support because they have nearly constant help from Democrats saying condescending bullshit like "vote against their own interests".
I disagree completely, how's that? I will NEVER be ok with normalizing Trump in any way. The guy is a Russian operative for chrissake. He is totally, completely and utterly corrupt and self-serving. Going after Trump as hard as possible is what needs to happen now. Going after his tax returns is a negative partisan initiative? Are you fucking kidding me?? Trump is pure evil. This needs to be recognized, talked about, and the total scumbag needs to be treated like the criminal he is.
I agree, this would be good but, I don't think that either party should have to totally give up their principles simply because the other party feels they should. It's happened in the past, one party feels that cooperation means, "Do it my way or, it won't get done at all" and, the other party has to crawl on hands and, knees to get a simple bill passed, then it gets rejected simply because the other party feels like rejecting it.
I agree, but we both know that going after Trump has been their number one priority since he took office. They want his tax returns. I certainly wouldn't want them...how many pages are there...how many attachments...how many of them would even understand them?
Very few of the D's in my area actually had a platform...so, we don't expect much from them at all. I'm sure they prefer it that way.
IF they can work together, McConnell kind of made it clear for the past two years he had no intention of working with any Democrat at all and, Trump made it clear that he will give lip service to working with Democrats but, when push comes to shove he will only do what the base wants him to do.
They need to be seen whether they are made private or not.
I'm willing to let them give it a try but, like I said, I don't want them having to move so far to the right that they can't see left, which is were McConnell and, Trump are right now. Remember when Obama was president the Republicans weren't satisfied with getting a part of what they wanted and, letting the Democrats get a part of what they wanted, that is what compromise is, giving a little so, you get a little, the Republicans wanted it all and, told the Democrats to go to hell when it came to what they wanted done, that is why nothing got done.
I am seeing too much inference on this forum that people, Democrats , will agree to acquiesce towards normalizing Donald Trump. All that will do is get him re-elected.
If we come to 2020 with Trump "working with" (and I really put that in quotes) with the congressional Democrats he's going to get re-elected. He'll even have dumb ass Democrats voting for him for cris sake.
The masses are asleep. This is probably the most embarrassing time in history to be an American , leaving aside slavery.
No, I am quite serious.
Acting emotionally usually ends poorly. I am confident the American people are tired of partisans gratuitously going after each other. Congress is 'supposed' to be acting on behalf of the people. Given a PotUS is not legally required to disclose his/her tax returns, going after them is a witch hunt - pure negative partisan initiatives. If the Ds actually do engage in this sidebar they better have good reasons other than 'Trump is corrupt and self-serving.'. Most of the electorate already know that ... and more.
The electorate has largely decided what they think of Trump. Until something arises that legally warrants investigation of the PotUS I say shut up and legislate. The Ds have the House, put that power to productive use. Do the job you were elected to do - not emotional partisan initiatives. Show the electorate that they are a party that can achieve productive results for the good of the American people instead of their own partisan interests.
I think the "waters" should be tested, I haven't forgotten Trumps saying he was for helping the Dreamers and, Pelosi and, Schumer offering to finance the wall for him but, he turned them down if he had to support the Dreamers.
American wealth was transferred from the many to a few by gop tax policy...
I think they should do their oversight job, something the GOP has utterly refused to do in regards to Trump and his nominees.
Depends on what they do and how they do it.
Going after tax records as a top priority is foolish; a PotUS is not required to disclose tax returns.
Focus first on popular legislative initiatives. Show the electorate that the D party is out to do the business of the people. That does not mean disregard proper investigations, but rather handle as a secondary concern and only for good reason.
Ultimately when a D House assumes power, the headlines should not be about Ds going after Trump's tax returns; the optics are terrible. Dumb move IMO.
That should be their very first move to insure that Trump's actions overseas aren't due to his obligations to foreign oligarchs and foreign banks.
I hope that the Democratic speaker has more backbone than Pelosi had in 2006. They need to show Trump and the GOP the very same partisanship that he has exhibited in 2017-18. Payback is going to be a bitch.
Trump would not be reelected if the election was tonight, Oliver. This election was a referendum on him and the GOP, and the American people rejected his ideas.
Nah. Dems took over all Great lakes governorships. That means even playing field for future house races. GOP is screwed for the next decade.
Trump cant win without carrying Great Lakes states like Ohio Mich Penn , and Wis. and thats not gonna happen again.
He might as well retire now.
Ohio stayed Republican
Nonsense. Trump increased his hold in the Senate
Gillium and Abrams defeated in the Governors races
You are correct. I misstated that one.
Stupid people believed DeWine's fear mongering. I voted all blue.
Walker has now closed to within 2700 votes in Wisconsin
Walker's another total piece of shit who shouldn't get a single vote from anyone.
Another religious fantasy that should be kept out of government. Stop trying to inject your religious beliefs into the lives of others.
Got that right.
I am getting to the point though, that if pieces of shit like him are what the people want, let them fall down the rabbit hole.
I am sick of them thinking that corporations are better then people. Let them reap what they sow.
Right now he's down by 12,000. All he has left is a partial count in Brown Co, so the odds are that he lost. That's very, very good news.
No surprise that he was raised by a bible-babbling SBC pastor. It explains why he's so evil.
Midterms usually go against the president. Look at Obama's disaster in 2010.
You have a firm grasp of the shockingly obvious.
Not only did he lose but he pushed through and signed the law which prevents him from asking for a recount. LOL. It's very good to see so many of these bigoted morons lose.
And yet it seems to escape you.
The shockingly obvious fact is that Barack Obama would have lost a 2010 election to Elmer Fudd, so firmly did the American people reject him and his ideas.
Bill Clinton would have been run out of office on a rail in 1994. His administration was so unpopular the American people gave the Republicans control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
Ronald Reagan would not have won re-election in 1982. The Republicans lost 26 house seats that year, back when California was mostly red and Texas was mostly blue.
There is a reason presidential terms are not 2 years. Almost all presidents are less popular two years in than they are when elected.
The remarkable thing is 2018 is that despite all of Trump's shenanigans, Republicans increased their hold in the Senate, and didn't lose the House nearly as badly as Obama or Clinton.
The Trump presidency is shaping up very, very much like the Nixon presidency, and it's worth noting that Nixon was re-elected because the Democrats in their stupidity nominated a hard leftist in 1972.
It's also worth noting Nixon was impeached and resigned in 1974. I wonder if history will repeat itself?
The Republicans win the Senate. The house is impotent. America has spoken.
I hope that the Democratic speaker has more backbone than Pelosi had in 2006. They need to show Trump and the GOP the very same partisanship that he has exhibited in 2017-18. Payback is going to be a bitch.
[deleted]
Fortunately with increased numbers in the Senate, Trump can pretty much ignore the House and fight them in court when necessary
we will see more federal judges confirmed and hopefully one or two more SCOTUS Justices
so all in all it wasn’t as bad a night as I feared it might
dem govs in mich, ill, leading in wisc. democrats picking up governorships is a big deal with a census year coming in 2020. These governors will be in office for redistricting after the census
greatly helps dems in future house elections
-
We also learned tonight that a lot of ignorant rural folk will support a piece of shit like Donald Trump.
What a disgrace to this country.
You leftists simply can’t understand how much we hate the ideology of the Democrats
A lot of those folks are like me with education and who had or still have professional careers
You oppose education and critical thinking.
Total lie. I hold two degrees and my sons both have degrees.
critical thinking is what those who actually know me consider one of my qualities
Critical thinking is the opposite of religious belief.
Actually they can go hand in hand but you seem to only focus on religious belief as if it’s the only thing I think about.
i have run companies in the US and Asia. I have held elective office as a city Parks Commissioner to give back to the community. I have held a seat on a local school board.
i have been involved in politics at all levels since 1960
i worked with Congress, NASA, and the military on research, development, and production of systems and hardware for our defense, aerospace, space programs, and transportation systems. I did so both as an engineer and then as an executive.
A very political preacher. I guess one does not believe in separation of church and state.
Ministers have been involved with our government since the Revolutionary War. They helped write and ratify the Constitution.
there is NO authority to ban ministers from our Constitutional right to speak out on politics or to be involved
Democrats have had no problem putting liberal priests or ministers in elected office. They have had no problem with leftist Dems running for president like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
You leftists are hypocrites on this subject.
So do you believe in separation of church and state?
A real shame, that. We need to find a more efficient way to keep your bigoted sharia laws out of our secular government.
I voted for a Methodist minister in the past but he was very careful to keep religious belief out of his secular duties. I'd vote for him again if I had the chance. He understood and embraced the strict separation of church and state.
When did you become an engineer, because in the past you said that you were a tax attoney?
Larry is an astronaut, a pastor, an underwear model, an international businessman, an accountant and submarine commander. He's a very accomplished theocrat.
You forgot economist, streetcorner philosopher, and fertilizer salesman.
I never said I was a tax attorney. I was in Aerospace for approximately 20 years
i own a tax preparation and bookkeeping business which I’ve run from home for 16 years.
Is Wesley Snipes one of your proud clients?
Ricidulously myopic view. Quite ironic, when you think about it, which I doubt you will.
Critical thinking demands the consideration of all possible outcomes. It also demands acceptance of the idea that information exists outside the realm of one's own current awareness.
Critical thinking also takes into consideration of all available evidence and logical analysis. It doesn't mean one should make something up just to explain something else. Religious belief is essentially reduced to something along the lines of "because God," and that's it. It doesn't incorporate or encourage further analysis or question. Anyone who thinks critically would not be satisfied with that particular answer.
Agreed. But it is not thinking critically to hold as true (possible, yes - true, no) that which is not evidenced. That is more like wishful thinking.
Religious belief is not without evidence. That's a bit preposterous. Indeed most religions developed as theories of how to explain natural phenomenon, also known as "evidence".
Really? What evidence is there to support religious beliefs or claims, other than mere belief?
Theory is the wrong word to use here. Religions probably developed as a means of explaining natural phenomenon (ex: Zeus threw lightning bolts, hence we see lightning, ect.). But there was no evidence for it. Fortunately nowadays, science allows us to explain and understand natural phenomenon through actual empirical evidence.
natural phenomenon is only evidence of - natural phenomenon.
The beliefs or stories from other human beings is not evidence. So what evidence is there to support the belief in the biblical God?
LOL. Yes, Thor is the thunder 'theory'. Gods clearly were invented as hypotheses to explain natural phenomena. Are you suggesting that an hypothesis is to be taken as evidence or that an hypothesis is true simply because it can list the evidence that inspired it?
You know the difference between a scientific theory (well-evidenced, logical, formal and has thus far survived motivated challenge) and an hypothesis (or speculation). Why do you even attempt to suggest that pure speculation such as a volcanic eruption means Vulcan is angry is akin to a theory based on evidence?
Come on man.
Exactly as much as there is to support belief that intelligent life exists on other planets.
Yes. Glad we agree.
Please cite my saying so. Or...alternatively...accept that I meant what I said and not what you imagine I must have intended.
Yes. Hence my use of the word "hypothesis".
Because at it's inception, it was. It was based on exactly as much evidence as the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, which was widely accepted as fact for several centuries. It was based on exactly as much evidence as the concept of dark matter, or the idea that the planets are held aloft in celestial spheres....which was the conclusion of the greatest scientific minds of that day.
It is a fascinating piece of irony that those who claim to eschew religion as 'faith without evidence' are so quick to develop a religious objection to a concept they cannot disprove.
Agreed. Thus one should not believe (hold as true) that intelligent life does exist. Accordingly, if you are following that reasoning, one should not believe (hold as true) that a god exists.
Both are possibilities. Best one can do is try to compute the probability of existence for either.
Me too.
What you wrote was unclear. Thus I asked you a qualifying question rather than simply presume . Did you not recognize the qualifying question? Responding with snark turns discussion into adversarial engagement. To what end?
Given you refuse to qualify your words, I presume you mean that the evidence of religious belief is the natural phenomenon it explains . Something like, a tree exists therefore God made it? Assuming I guessed correctly, the problem with your logic is that existence of life forms, non-life forms, natural forces, etc. are evidence only that these exist. How they came to exist is not evidenced merely by their existence. (Note that evolution also is not evidenced merely by existence; the evidence of evolution is profoundly deeper and more complex.) And clearly when looking at religions such as those falling under Christianity, the existence of natural phenomena in no way evidences the highly attributed description of the Christian God nor any of the stories regarding this God.
But maybe you had another meaning. Hard to tell.
You used the word 'theory'. I used the word 'hypothesis' as an implicit correction. Here is what you wrote:
Not making this stuff up Jack. Just trying to get a clear understanding of where you stand.
It was an hypothesis (at the very best), not theory. Speculation based on evidence leads to an hypothesis, not a theory.
Now you are using the word hypothesis when you just finished using theory. See the problem? There is a monster difference between those two concepts.
Today we actually have a theory of evolution and it is a bona fide theory of empirical science. Highly corroborated, challenged and evidenced. Compare that to the religious hypothesis of creation (to explain the species of life). There is not a shred of evidence supporting that hypothesis (arguably the evidence contradicts it). How can you possibly compare the two with a straight face?
Religion does indeed require belief sans evidence. You have not provided a single item of evidence supporting any religion. I have no idea what you think you have demonstrated to make such a bold closing statement, but whatever is in your mind did not successfully make it into your post.
When was the last time a secular humanist atheist knocked on your door trying to spread their ideology and "save" the masses?
Out of all the dozens of churches you likely pass daily or weekly, how many of those tax exempt locations were run by secular humanist atheists?
When was the last time your child brought home an art project inspired by secular humanist atheists?
Secular humanist atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Talk about coming from left field.
That comment has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Worse, it is nothing more than an ill-conceived claim with zero supporting facts or logic.
Us nasty Humanists are not very organized. We do need to work on our recruiting effort but because we aren't a group there isn't much funding for such work.
I also don't collect old cars, but I do have a very large collection of books without pages.
I'm thinking more Twilight Zone .
In other words, it's his standard claims and BS. Got it.
That's because when he's cornered by logic and/or has nothing of substance to contribute, he tries to dodge or change directions. it seems to be a pattern of behavior.
it boils down to the very childish response of "i know you are, but what am i ?"
A critical thinker would not rule out the existence of either.
Not if you just read it at face value.
No, the other way round. Humans have always sought explanation for the unkown. Why does the mountain suddenly spew lava? Why does the calm sea turn to storm? Why does the sun rise and set? Why does it rain or why does it not rain for years on end? Why does one army win a battle or why is one child born with a defect?
These questions were the genesis of most primitive religions. People were responding to the physical evidence they saw and hypothesizing about explanations.
Please cite me doing so. This is you assuming, presuming, and guessing....again, while claiming that incredibly simple statements are unclear...simply because you refuse to accept them as they are. It appears as though you're looking for a specific discussion and can't understand that it isn't developing.
How long did we believe Fermat's last theorem without actual proof? How long did scientists accept the "fact" of celestial spheres? How many doctors prescribed leeches for patients? Looks like science may be a bit of a religion of its own.
Was that some sort of requirement?
It seems highly unlikely a person of your educational background could have missed it. But I guess introspection is difficult for everyone.
You completely denounce something you can't disprove....in the name of science. And you don't see irony in that.....
We don't.
They were assigning causes for those phenomena without any real reason for doing so other than their own imaginations.
TiG has stated repeatedly that he is an agnostic atheist. He does not believe that there is a god, based on the lack of evidence, but is open to the possibility, should evidence be produced.
Correct.
Correct. There has been no disagreement that religions arose from people inventing explanations for observed phenomena. But an explanation for observed phenomena is at the very best an hypothesis. It is not a scientific explanation - it is not a theory.
I laid it out in my last post! You conflate the word theory with hypothesis. You discuss the two interchangeably. Religious explanations are not theories - they are mere hypotheses.
Until it was mathematically proved anyone who accepted it as formally proved was mistaken. Not much of a point unless you are trying to suggest that people make mistakes. If so, given. Beyond that, this is an example in mathematics, not empirical science. Theorems and scientific theories are quite different creatures. (Strange example to open with.)
You are reaching back to pre-science. Where people simply invented explanations for observations (they had little choice). Why not pull out examples from alchemy too? If you wish to make the point that ancient people were naive (by our standards) I agree. By science I am talking about the application of the modern scientific method. Celestial spheres is as much science as ancient Hebrew looking at the night sky and explaining the moon as the night light to match the sun which is the day light. Or ancient Romans deeming a volcanic eruption the anger of Vulcan. One can observe reality and then dream up all sorts of explanations. That is the problem we are discussing, right? The distinction between objective scientific theory (formal, falsifiable, verified, predictive well-challenged explanations) and mere imagined explanations.
Now, another answer (a different perspective) is this. The process of science is one in which we move from poor to a better understanding of reality. It is a self-correcting process and, critically, it is one in which we actually progress. This is another stark difference when compared to religion. Religion asserts an explanation as truth and then seeks to preserve that assertion over time. Science follows the evidence to where it leads and happily discards that which is incorrect when new evidence arises. The celestial spheres hypothesis was discarded by the scientific process.
If you wish to make the point that ancient people were superstitious (as well as naive) then I agree with that too. Again, not what we are debating, right?
You seem to want to dilute the meaning of science and scientific theory from what we started with (modern scientific theories such as biochemical evolution). Given you are trying to include ancient naive practices as part of modern science (again, what we were discussion) I suppose this means you really do not have much of an argument to make.
You made the claim that religious beliefs are based on evidence just as modern scientific theories are based on evidence - as if to equate the two. ( Are you going to deny this too? )
Where did this come from? An entirely non sequitur claim out of thin air? What did I 'completely denounce'? Where? When?
What do you think Jack is talking about here Sandy? Honestly this makes no sense to me. What does Jack claim I 'denounced'?
I'm at a loss, too.
Which is also how plenty of scientific progress begins.
E.A BINGO!!!
No Re Ligion No Faith No Hope = NO SCIENCE!!!
OK. So religion is not "without evidence". Excellent.
That was it.
Invention is not evidence.
Didn't say it was.
Then I think we disagree on what we consider to be evidence.
I don't see the existence of volcanoes as evidence of Pele, for example.
E.A See Periodic Table, Now Think how many Elements where assumed to exist long before they " detected " some are not " seen " and might never be for they exist in Picoseconds only!
Firmly within the realm of actual concrete science and reality. Myths like god/s and such, not so much.
We're not talking about what you see as evidence. We're talking about what THEY would have seen as evidence.
Polynesians guessing about a fire-god is no different than Aristotle guessing about planetary motion or some Chinese wise man guessing about stabbing needles in an injured person to relieve pain or a 20th century physicist conjecturing about light as particles instead of waves. All of those things start with "what if it works like this?"
So let's say you have a tribe of primitives somewhere in 2000 BC whose village is devastated by flood. Somebody hypothesizes that there must be a river god who is angry and demands to be appeased. The next year, the people sacrifice a chicken to the river god, and lo and behold.....no flood. They repeat this process for 20 years....and still no flood. They conclude that the river god theory must be correct, and keep sacrificing chickens.
That is a conclusion based on evidence. Full stop. Does it conform with modern scientific method? No. But it's not without evidence.
You do not understand the difference between observed phenomena and scientific evidence?
No wonder you think religion is based on evidence.
Scientific evidence is at a minimum observed phenomena but it goes well beyond that. It is observed phenomena that (at the very least) demonstrably supports the hypothesis (the speculated explanation) in question. Observed phenomena does not automatically constitute evidence of a particular hypothesis and certainly not scientific evidence. By support we mean that the evidence narrows the possibilities to the point where the hypothesis is the, or at least one of a few, most likely possibilities. (The concept of following the evidence to where it leads .) Without this concept of demonstrable support, you do not have evidence for your hypothesis - you simply have an observation. This leaves your hypothesis as nothing more than wild speculation. A leap of faith.
Simple illustration:
You observe a circular depression filled with water (a pond) - an observed phenomenon. You hypothesize that the depression was caused by a rounded-base alien spaceship that has since departed. Is this observed phenomenon evidence of an extraterrestrial visit?
Why not?
As noted upfront, religious beliefs are naive, highly speculative explanations of observations. When faced with unexplained natural phenomena such as thunder, lightning, famine, floods, volcanoes, etc. human beings have historically invented gods. And of course existential questions are resolved by creator gods. Anything observed (including our own existence) that could not be logically explained was ultimately explained by religious views based on powerful gods.
When someone asks for evidence supporting a religious view, that is not a request to list observation(s) which triggered ancient people to dream up some supernatural explanation. It is asking for (at the very least) formal, repeatable observations that show the religious view as the most likely hypothesis . And, indeed, if one equates a religious view with a scientific theory (not simply an hypothesis) the formal requirements for said evidence are at a substantially higher level.
What is the evidence that shows the Christian God - an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, loving, eternal, first-cause entity - created everything?
That is equivocation. You are trying to dilute the concept of evidence to mere observation.
Boo.
You really don't know how Congress works, do you. Outside of ratification of treaties and confirmations of judges and cabinet members the Senate doesn't have much stand-alone power. Every law needs passage in both houses no matter which house it originates. And all spending and revenue bills MUST begin in the House. IOW, that's where the power of the purse lies. Add to that, the House has at least as much subpoena power as the Senate. And after the blow-out republicans suffered in the House this month and the fact that in 2020 it will be republicans defending 22 of the 34 senate seats as dems--i.e. the reverse of what made it so hard for dems this year--republican senators in at least a half dozen of those states that went blue this year will be thinking of their careers more than running cover for Trump.
Again, this is why I'm always so delighted to find your notions on science and this one might be a classic. Let's get to the meat, shall we?
I suppose you used "seen" to suggest the "some" were not seen by the naked eye but, of course, they were seen by instruments (those are things designed to detect, e.g., very small things like atoms and even subatomic particles usually by looking for and finding the effects on other atoms or particles). Suggest you look up the general subject of detection of elements for some basics. And, of course, astronomy was born out of being able to literally look at the stars and planets and that's still the way a lot of astronomy is done although now the best telescopes are out in space with no atmosphere to contend with. Of course there are other ways of detecting distant stars and planets that do not involve "seeing" them directly at all. And mathematics is fundamentally an abstract construct. Yes, we say we "see the math" but what that really means is we are merely looking at the numbers, symbols and formulas that were created to express mathematical concepts and truths. Finally, for those elements that only exist for the briefest of moments the point is that they do exist.
Again, keep those comments coming, EA. They are a welcome source of comic relief.
and if a religion is created out of that situation you described - you are stating that the religion is based on evidence ? ....of a flood ? .... observed phenomena is simply evidence of ... observed phenomena
if a religion is created out of your situation - it's not based on any evidence at all and there's no proof whatsoever of their religious god they've created.
A correlation does not prove causation fallacy is not empirical evidence. The villagers can emotionally link the sacrificing of chickens to the lack of a flood but that does not mean that the action in question is causative. Your statement is just more proof that religious belief is based on sloppy thinking and emotions. Many people want easy, happy answers to life's problems and religious belief is there to give it to them, but that does not mean that religion is a positive force in society and that it should be endorsed.
That is a good example of how modern religion originated, aka "superstitions". A flawed conclusion made based on incomplete limited evidence and an overly strong desire to fill in the blanks. Humans hate to be afraid, and there's nothing the masses fear more than the unknown. Staring into the depths of the sea or out into the heavens allowed their imaginations to wild inventing all sorts of fantasies to explain the limited evidence they had. Dragons were based on dinosaur bones, sea monsters on whale carcasses and giant squid remains, unicorns based on narwhals or possibly some horned deer in Africa. Personally I think it's an evolved trait we learned while still living in the trees, we learned to fear the dark and imagine it's a jaguar or other predator lurking around every dark corner. That turned into religion as man stared into the darkness of human past and our unexplained origins. We invented our beginnings more times than we can count, thousands upon thousands of Gods and goddesses believed in and worshiped by our ancestors going all the way back to the beginning of recorded history and beyond.
So as you say, it's not "without evidence", religion has always used certain physical certainties and proclaimed them to be evidence of their brand of faith. But do we still want to kill the chicken to stop the flood when we know that it didn't have any effect? Now that we're able to access so much more truth and facts behind the physical world we can't pretend a T-Rex tooth came from a fire breathing dragon, and we can't pretend that killing a chicken prevented flooding. Doing such will just put us at more danger believing we had protected from a flood when in reality it did nothing but appease the superstitious. We should have been studying the flood patterns, weather warnings and maybe invest in flood barriers or better drainage, you know, real solutions.
@4.2.24 you first tried to equate observed phenomena with "evidence":
And I immediately agreed that religious ideas were indeed formulated based on observed phenomena:
Basically, observation lead to wild speculation. Speculation happens in science too (but it is just scaffolding). Scientists observe anomalies and speculate (imagine) plausible explanations (hypotheses). For each considered hypothesis the scientist will seek corroborating evidence. Without this evidence the hypothesis is tabled or discarded.
In contrast you offer a River God hypothesis - speculation on why the river flooded. Here you have an hypothesis but not a shred of evidence that there is a River God and certainly none that support a River God causing a flood out of anger. It is nothing but an unsubstantiated fantasy tale.
But you offer this as an example of evidence. I am laughing.
But worse, my position has always been that there is no evidence to support religious claims. By evidence I am (as always) talking about that which meets the criteria of the scientific method. And I offered a means for you to show that religious views are based on evidence (your claim - and one that was not qualified by time period) by going to the root claim of the super majority of worldwide religions:
If you apply your feeble observation argument your proposed 'evidence' would be something like: we exist so we are evidence of God the creator.
What is the problem with such a response?
You continue to make excuses where your god can still exist, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Logic cannot exist if you automatically create a possibly or a loophole of something existing outside of our own existence as an alternative. We can only consider what we know so the fact that something may exist is not evidence. It's a possibility that cannot be part of the logical solution. Math and the sciences could not exist in your scenario because there is always something that we may not know, but that doesn't mean that what we do know is wrong, merely because we may not have all of the possible answers.
I shouldn't have to say this but you have created an argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
If it turns out to be based on faulty assumptions or reasoning it's not evidence. It becomes opinion.......or, often, religion.
It looks like it's gonna be a mini blue wave in the House. Possibly more than a mini.
The only thing that would have made me feel better about where we are, is if there was a HUGE blue wave. Even after Trump turning out to be every bit as horrible as we feared, a healthy chunk of the country approves of the absolute horror show in the White House, and chooses to ignore the painfully obvious and extremely serious corruption. America will never be the same again. We will be able to fix some of the damage Trump inflicts on the country, but some will be permanent.
Your clairvoyance is confirmed. It could go as high as a 39 seat pick-up when CA is finished counting.
McCaskill has now lost in Missouri so the Republicans may pick up 4-5 seats in the Senate
It now looks like a max of 2 (or only 1 if Nelson wins in FL). So not at all the blow-out Rs were hoping for and makes getting control of the Senate very much an achievable goal in 2 years.
Trump can now run in 2020 that Democrats obstructed any attempt to make America even better.
Looks like Trump is now virtually assured of being re-elected
LOL.....he couldn't even win a plurality of votes the first time and now far more people loath him.
Trump's re-election is far less likely. One reason is because the House investigations will show he has run a corrupt administration and that he is personally corrupt.
Plus he has never got a plurality even, as Shrek said, what he does has is an army of ignorant folk from the sticks.
We do have a civil war going on, but it is one Trump will never win.
Only if the EC fucks it up AGAIN.
How can the EC "f..." it up "again". It beveled did such thing in the first place.
That kind of magical thinking is as amusing as it is just plain weird.
Facts are facts. Religious belief is the idea that you believe in something that you cannot prove. It's the modern study of mythology. If you want to claim to be a critical thinker embrace formal logic and the sciences. Religious is not the same as the study of ethics.
Mark Knopfler put it even more bluntly.
You can get your start in the subject for $50.00. Just be prepared to have a few of your current sacred cows made into burger when you start to think logically.
If you live close to a college you can pick up used textbooks for a song at the end of the semester. This is a classic introduction on the subject. It was so obvious to me that I was shocked that others had a difficult time with these concepts.
I missed this course. Professor Patrick Grimm is excellent. These ideas should be required as part of HS.
Trump Truly Is On A Mission From God!!!
They tell me the same thing about satan.
Trump Truly Is On A Mission From God!!!
Well I suppose He is in an offhanded way. As He is the only god that He would find equal to Himself and He is on a mission for Himself you could say you are correct.
In truth this is quite an insane notion indeed.
[Removed]
E.A why does it seem to bother YOU so much, nothing better to do?
[Removed]
Removed for context [SP]
Removed for context [SP]
I gotta ask, and I am being serious, do actual sober adults buy into this? I mean seriously, do actual sober, not retarded adult humans actually believe this stuff?
No. Entirely the opposite. This is the daily output of the deranged rightwing pukefunnel.
double post (deleted)
No. Even the seeder doesn't believe it, he just posted it to elicit outrage and incredulity. It worked on you...
I am not so sure....
If that is true then the OP would be trolling.
To bad most, if not all of it, is just BS, false, and/or flat out lies!
Not a personal attack, but rather simple fact. Some of your BS has been pointed out before.
That's not something I'd be proud of or impressed with.
Irrelevant. I'm not interested in agreement. just facts!
That's a fact.
And that's an opinion.
I suppose that depends on how high one's standards is. I would assume that for the highest office in the land, "great job" would carry very high standards and expectations.
Trump removed the shackles of big government control from us and by eliminating 800 of Obama’s job-killing regulations he freed us to be the best we can be.
Well without knowing what the regulations were and what they were put in place to protect trump may have set us up to be the worst we can be as well. Time will tell.
Why were there these regulations to begin with ?
This article should be used by religious groups as teaching case for blasphemy.
It almost doesn't need to be pointed out but it's a lie that domestic steel production is booming. Nevertheless I will point it out:
Four
Jesus was a socialist and a total bleeding heart liberal. The Republicans are the epitome of the money changers Jesus threw out of the temple. No good Christian would ever vote for a Republican.
Jesus was a liberal.
Give all that you own to the poor? Sounds like a liberal to me.
Was Jesus a social conservative? Yeah, you might have a point. Jesus ostensibly lived in a time where slavery was replete yet he never denounced as immoral the owning of another person as property. Hmmmm. Not much of a liberal position. And although Jesus was rather quiet on homosexuals - unlike Yahweh (who demanded death for a homosexual act) - he still considered it a sin.
Does not matter if Jesus considered himself liberal - what matters is what he ostensibly taught and what he ostensibly did. Words and actions. We get to decide based on words and actions where Jesus fit in within our earthly political / ideological categories.
Same here, I’ve often thought liberals want everyone to be poor.
Sounds like a member of Congress.