Why is the speed of light in a vacuum 299,792,458 meters per second and not 1 meter per second or 999,999,999 meters per second?

Say "RCC" once more please?  I know it's not whining but man it sure has the same beat.

Sinperium :I despise the RCC (happy, hahaha) ... have I been unclear somewhere ... what in the world is whinny about that pray tell??? As far as I am concerned, the RCC doesn’t have anything at all to do with a real religion and never did. Nice to know they have a supporter in you though … I suppose.

Ah, nothing but baits and switches going on here....

I don't think eather side is hearing the other.... and i don't think it really matters.  those who wish to stay blind, cannot see.

The Bible doesn't need to be proven, that has already been done if one simply looks for the proof.

And Catholicism is not Christianity.  There is a difference.

The OP title is Science and God, not science and religion... 

Roughly 5-10 years ago.  The Bible is the most accurately transcribed, protected and historical text that we have.  If you simply dismiss it as false, you MUST dismiss almost ALL historical texts as false.  If you want details, I can get you details over the weekend.

I'll offer an explanation just for the sake of thoroughness.

Catholicism is a religious system.

Being a Christian (outside of a religious system) is simply having a personal experience that one sees also presented within the bible and that one identifies with as as relating to the bible's claims of Christ. 

Religion requires a submission to human authority and understanding and accepting that it has the right to speak and act authoritatively on behalf of a God.  It requires acceptance of an organizational set of doctrines written by men for practitioners of their system as absolute essentials--whether they are directly described in scripture or not and regardless of whether they are personally experienced or not.  So if the Pope wakes up and says, "All true believers must eat toast on Tuesdays!", practioners of that religion are obliged to obey and accept it as if from God.

Personal belief requires a personal conclusion based on one's own experience and that is guided by one's conscience.  There is no requirement or necessity at all to be part of a large organization to be a Christian.  All that is required is an experience that can be validated within the bible so that it is recognizable as "Christ" and "Christian" by the one who experienced it.

That's the part you won't understand--the experience.  So all that is left  for you in this state is to repetitiously turn to arguments about religion and/or to dismiss any claims of a personal experience without a real attempt at examination (and going back to arguing about religious systems or sardonically dismissing personal beliefs or showing the time-worn prominent atheist video isn't a "real attempt").

You're too busy trying to prove what you feel you know to look at something you don't.

The situation isn't automatically reversed because even as believers we have the experience of knowing about and having experience with science and nature just as you do. That's not the same experience we've had with what we know as God.

"Requires a submission to human authority". You should have said that a long time ago because that is the key to all of it and stating it earlier would have saved you a lot of grief. Basically the same thing I quoted as Hitchens saying, and very much something I understood many moons ago. Maybe you should think twice before you again and again accuse others who you know very little about of not making any "real attempt of examination". Religion is so pervasive in society that it is being examined either consciously or subconsciously much of the time in any case.

If I was you I wouldn't be so sure of that. You have no clue about how much people who you don't even know have looked into matters of religion.

Looking into religion isn't the same as having an experience with God.  So the submission to men isn't relevant in that respect--nice troll of a quote though. There are lots of devout people who never have had an experience yet are quite involved in religion--just as you are with yours which has no more substance than philosophy propped up with claims of science.

One of Hitchens publicly stated ideas was to make "the state" pre-eminent in order to trump religious tendencies.  An officialy sanctioned panel would work out what sort of ideas and values were "universal" and acknowledge them appropriately.  Established religious beliefs weren't on the list.

Hitchens also acknowledged that satisfying or compensating for people's natural tendencies to look for religious meaning and value in society would be difficult to quell and some solution would have to be found.  One he didn't prefer but was the easiest to envision was the idea of celbrating with ceremony or holiday shared ideals and the like.

In Hitchens--and your--world, we will all submit to your ideas and put those of our own aside that conflict with them.  Considering that genuine atheists arguably average less than 10% of the population (I'm being generous there) that sounds pretty old-school communistic to me.  A small, intellectual, etlite group will decide and control the values of the masses...for the good of society. Da, Commissar!

I don't think Hitchen's would have agreed to any such extreme measures himself in actuality had they been legislated onto people by a minority.  I have no doubt however that it wouldn't trouble you in the least.

Hitchens wasn't the problem.  It's arrogant idealistic followers like yourself who are.

It's totally relevant. It is the foundation of all the major religions as well as being a major reason for many people who turn away from religion.

Hitchen's world is very different from mine. There are many things he has stated with which I do not agree. Possibly more things that I disagree with than agree...simply not worth my time to tally them up.

I simply follow my own path so what you're talking about here is really just nonsense.

Occam's razor, people. Use it.