The debt level as a percent of GDP was much higher at the end of World War II. The present debt level does not imply that there will be serious consequences. It might happen that there are serious consequences but there don't necessarily have to be serious consequences.
The consequences of our present spending will be determined by the quality of future policy decisions.
Computers work with computable systems of axioms. The Peano axioms of arithmetic, that is the complete set of them, are not a computable system. A computer would not be able to deduce the results from the strong system of Peano axioms that are not computable. Well, so I believe.
Flip a coin 100,000 times and after each flip record whether you got a heads or a tails. After you are done you have a 100,000 long chain of heads and tails written. Now ask a mathematician what the probability that this chain of heads and tails will ever be flipped and he/she will say that it is 1/2^(100,000). But you just flipped this exact same sequence! Amazing.
It would be foolish to argue that God had to be involved because an event of extremely low probability occurred. Likewise, it is foolish to argue that since humans evolving randomly is an extremely low probability event then God must have had a hand it it.
I voted you up because what you write is certainly true. I think he just might be the worst President in history. Andrew Jackson comes to mind because of his genocide of the Native peoples of the United States. What's happened in Iraq is a great human tragedy and I am not prepared to argue with any degree of accuracy that the genocide of the Native peoples outweighs the human tragedy in Iraq. But it is something to consider.
In the sermon on the mount Christ said,
"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"
Christians that have an America first attitude are disobeying Christ because they are not doing more than what pagans do. The charge of Christ is one of love and self sacrifice and not just for your neighbor but also for those who hate us and are our enemies. Christians everywhere ought to advocate for policies that are in the interest of justice for all humanity and not to advocate for policies that maintain American power or what is in America's self interest.
George Bush's presidency has been a disaster. Our ruinous war in Iraq has cost the United States $3 trillion. The United States has had a negative savings rate for some time now and deficit spending is out of control. John McCain has promised more wars and to try to maintain the American imperial system.
Another 4 - 8 years of this and the imperial system has a good chance of collapse. This means a decrease in American power and the ability for the United States to act unilaterally and invade other countries at will will similarly be diminished. This is a good thing. This is a good thing for the world and humanity. John McCain represents the best hope for ensuring the demise of the America's empire.
Vote John McCain.
In the U.S., at least, we suffer from having too many laws. As it stands now, we have the highest rate of incarceration after North Korea.
The larger context of the question is whether or not it should be socially acceptable for obese people to eat at fast food restaurants. Obesity rates are highest amongst the poor and the allure of fast food is almost too hard to pass up for poor people. Fast food provides massive amounts of calories per dollar. A poor person does not have the luxury of buying fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods in the same quantities that the middle class and wealthy can. Poor people aren't rich enough to eat healthy.
It is obvious that fast food companies spend millions of dollars researching their concoctions. Almost all of their food is artificial and are primarily sugary concoctions. The food is designed to affect the brain in ways similar to how drugs work. Should fast food restaurants be allowed to serve this filth to anyone? I don't know but let's not fixate on the obese and shift responsibility from the restaurants and a government with unsound social policies.
I just saw your response. There is room for leeway. I was just pointing out that the act of 'believing in Jesus Christ' is not sufficient to be considered a Christian. I used Muslims as an example of people who believe in Jesus Christ but are not considered Christians. Muslims say of Jesus Christ that he was perfect (sin free) but not divine. I wasn't implying that Mormons are not Christians but rather that the argument presented was flawed.
Christ's charge to believers, in a nutshell, is "follow me". Christians are to emulate him and live according to his commands. In the United States this clearly isn't happening on a grand scale. Most churches are little more than social clubs that provide a convenient means of feeling good about one's morality and station in the world without the burden of actually serving the poor, downtrodden, and others in need. Suggestions that believers ought to do more good works are met with declarations that one is saved by grace. The hypocrisy of these sorts of believers is thus exposed. Their goal is to avoid hell not to follow Christ. I believe the real goal of these sorts of believers is to be part of a social club constantly saying that one is saved by grace is a rationalization for not doing anything Christ like. The modern church largely misses the mark.
It does remind us of our identity? Which identity is that? There are Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, etc. in the the U.S. The pledge doesn't say anything about this. It doesn't say anything about identity. The native people of the U.S. certainly did not understand and believe in us being one nation.
How do you know that in God's eyes we have a common purpose? When did He tell you this?
It does remind us of our identity? Which identity is that? There are Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, etc. in the the U.S. The pledge doesn't say anything about this. It doesn't say anything about identity. The native people of the U.S. certainly did not understand and believe in us being one nation.
How do you know that in God's eyes we have a common purpose? When did He tell you this?
The pledge might remind people of our identity, though I find this hard to believe since it doesn't make any references to our identity, but the question is whether or not this is idolatry. I really don't think God appreciates people pledging allegiance to things other than Him. At least according to my understanding of the Bible. Also, clearly we are not one nation under God as many of the citizens of the United States are not religious. We are not under a theocracy and our laws are not in accordance, necessarily, with the Bible. I believe that saying we are one nation under God is a lie but this is a separate issue.
I don't believe one can have allegiance to God and allegiance to a country. The interests, demands, and principles of the two are mostly at odds with each other. Governments generally seek to preserve the and/or enhance the power of the country they govern. The Christian principle is to do what is best for humanity and not, necessarily, what is in the best interest of the country. America first should never be the rallying cry of a Christian and saying the pledge of allegiance helps to inculcate an America-centric view.
What are you talking about? I did not bring up God in the post you responded to. I like how you define faith to be something 'positively bolstered by ignorance'. It's very convenient to define the word in such a way that there is nothing to discuss. You are free to define words as you want but I gave the definition I am using. It is invalid to attack my argument based on a definition of the word that I am not using, especially in light of the fact that I supplied the definition I am using. I would love for you to reference a dictionary that defines faith as 'a belief that something is true positively bolstered by ignorance'.
We have compulsory education right now but the lawmakers were insightful enough to know that beyond a certain age it isn't feasible to force people to go to school. You say 'all that needs to be done', and thus it is quite clear you haven't really thought about the consequences. How are you going to force a 20 year old to stay in school. Will school be a prison that they can't physically leave until they graduate? If not, who is going to make sure they go? Does a police officer show up in the morning and physically force an adult to go to school? The statement you made, 'all that needs to be done' is way too simplistic.
Feasibility is part of the debate because if it isn't feasible then it shouldn't be done.
What would be the penalty for someone who doesn't get their diploma should it become mandatory? Do we penalize teachers who don't pass enough students? Do we force adults to stay in high school until they complete their degree? Who pays for this and who subsidizes the students while they are in school as adults?
Forcing everyone to get a high school diploma is not feasible.
Faith is a belief that something is true without proof. So obviously my faith that my car's brakes aren't going to give out the next time I drive my car is a belief.
Having evidence that something is true is not the same as having proof that something is true. So, even though my experience with cars leads me to believe that my car's brakes aren't going to give out, this experience does not constitute a proof. I can't prove that the car's brakes will not give out because every time I use them there is a nonzero probability that they will give out.
In a strict sense I can not prove that gravity exists. All I can say is that there is an overwhelming evidence that it does exist and that there are no legitimate competing theories in my mind. Faith is belief without proof. So, I have a measure of faith that gravity exists. Likewise, I have faith that electrons exist. I have never proven their existence myself but I have faith that there isn't some grand conspiracy amongst physicists to make me believe that electrons exists when in fact they don't exist.
Faith is not a dirty word and there are certainly degrees of faith. It doesn't take much faith for me to believe that electrons exist even though I have never proven their existence. It takes far greater faith to say that God exists. We all exhibit faith to some degree in many, many things.
Definition of faith according to Dictionary.com:
2. belief that is not based on proof
I posted an argument that not all faith is ignorance. I used an example of my car's brakes. There is a nonzero probability that they will fail at any given time. This probability is small but it is not zero. I drive my car confident that my brakes aren't going to give out. I drive as if I know they aren't going to give out. I haven't proven that my brakes aren't going to give out by inspecting them etc. I have faith that they will not give out. This faith is well deserved and rooted in the statistical reality that the chance that they will give out is quite small. It is faith, nonetheless. And so this is an example of where faith is not ignorance.
The statement does not say faith in God is ignorance so I am going to assume that you mean any type of faith. There are times when faith is not ignorance.
I have faith that my car's brakes are going to work. This faith is based on my experiences. My car's brakes have never failed me in the past and have given me no indication of immanent failure. I haven't proven that my brakes are fine by inspecting them so my belief that they are fine is faith. But this faith of mine is not based on ignorance but rather on knowledge gained from experience.
Naturally, there are times when faith is ignorance.
If you read what I have written on the topic you would know that I am not opposed to breast feeding in public except when it is done in inappropriate ways. All that I have said on the topic is that it can be done inappropriately and when it is done inappropriately I oppose it. There were no arguments in the No section and so I just wrote this to see what would happen.
What happened is that people didn't read what was written and went off on how children need to be fed. As you state just about everything can be done in an inappropriate way. This is clear and obvious and no one should think otherwise. All that I have done is to say that public breast feeding can be done in an inappropriate way that when it is done thusly I oppose it. This should should not be a controversial statement.
