Religion STUDY: AMERICANS BECOMING LESS CHRISTIAN, MORE SECULAR

[Denny Crane]

You're good at telling me what I believe and what I don't.

Easy to argue against that nonsense. You lose when people realize that it's not a good argument at all.

I believe the big bang is the best explanation for how the universe was created. That's different in believing in it. There are lots of observed data to suggest it, in spite of your denial. They suggest the truth flies in the face of your fairy tale belief system.

Your logic fails continually astound and insult one's intelligence.

I can see a bug must have ate part of my tomato plant, even though I don't see the actual bug. By your logic, the bug doesn't exist.

Keep on making a fool of yourself.

 

[magnifier661]

I too believe in the Big Bang. It's a good fairy tale, you know, using your logic of what defines a fairy tale.

The bug eating the tomato is observed because we have observed bugs eating a tomato before. It has been observed and that observation gives man an idea on who ate the tomato.

So where have we observed singularity?

 

[Denny Crane]

Denial.

It's not just a river in Egypt, it's your failure.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Fight!

 

[magnifier661]

Odd, you claim failure and yet you still give zero observations to support singularity or abiogenesis. Oh I see, you believe because someone with a PhD told you? That makes total sense!

As I already said above.

Atheists give no observations on singularity, therefor I am atheist to the naturalist's concept of the Big Bang.

Atheists give no observation on abiogenesis, therefor I am atheist to naturalist's concept of evolution.

Atheists give no observation God does not exist, therefor I am atheist to atheism.

It is not my burden of proof to be atheist to atheism. The atheist must prove to me that atheism is a sound belief, otherwise you are no different than a theist living by their faith.

 

[Denny Crane]

Odd, you claim failure and yet you still give zero observations to support singularity or abiogenesis. Oh I see, you believe because someone with a PhD told you? That makes total sense!

As I already said above.

Atheists give no observations on singularity, therefor I am atheist to the natural Big Bang.

Atheists give no observation on abiogenesis, therefor I am atheist to naturalist evolution.

Atheists give no observation God does not exist, therefor I am atheist to atheism.

It is not my burden of proof to be atheist to atheism. The atheist must prove to me that atheism is a sound belief, otherwise you are no different than a theist and living by their faith.

Denial, still

We don't see the bug, yet the bug ate from the plant.

Just as we don't see the singularity, we see evidence that it exists. The evidence continues to mount in support of singularities.

Unlike "god" for which there is zero evidence other than "testimony" that is bullshit.

Fairy tale might be the wrong word. Myth. Legend. Fable.

 

[magnifier661]

Denial, still

We don't see the bug, yet the bug ate from the plant.

Just as we don't see the singularity, we see evidence that it exists. The evidence continues to mount in support of singularities.

Unlike "god" for which there is zero evidence other than "testimony" that is bullshit.

Fairy tale might be the wrong word. Myth. Legend. Fable.

Your idea of failure is the fairy tale you have conjured up in your own silly mind.

Evidence to support singularity means absolutely shit unless you can actually observe "singularity". If it can't be observed, I can remain atheist of the "naturalist's view" of what singularity is. For all we know, singularity could be God. How can you prove otherwise?

If you have this mountain of evidence of the observation of singularity, it should be quite easy to post the links here. I will wait...

Seems to me you have the case of the Mondays, and it's HUMP DAY! You are a bit behind the times man. Try and keep up.

 

[Denny Crane]

The bug cannot be observed. It is long gone. Yet you are willing to make the leap of faith to believe it did exist because the evidence says it does.

So you continue to offer up really poor logic and arguments.

https://www.singularityweblog.com/a-mathematical-proof-of-the-singularity/

Many more where that came from that don't quote a book of fairy tales.

 

[magnifier661]

The bug cannot be observed. It is long gone. Yet you are willing to make the leap of faith to believe it did exist because the evidence says it does.

So you continue to offer up really poor logic and arguments.

https://www.singularityweblog.com/a-mathematical-proof-of-the-singularity/

Many more where that came from that don't quote a book of fairy tales.

That "mathematical proof" is proving the idea that there was singularity. What it doesn't prove is what is singularity. And for you to assume this was natural completely proves that you put faith in something you haven't observed.

Welcome to the faithful society. We got "I have finally found my faith" buttons at the member services area. Make sure to fill out the membership card to give updates on new "fairy tale" findings.

 

[Denny Crane]

You spew bullshit in post after post.

Nobody said the singularity is observed, nor does it need to be. There is a mountain of evidence that they occur throughout the universe.

I don't have faith in the unobservable, only in which there is a mountain of evidence in support.

Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

It is impossible to see the singularity or the actual Big Bang itself, as time and space did not exist inside the singularity and, therefore, there would be no way to transmit any radiation from before the Big Bang to the present day. However, evidence for the existence of an initial singularity, and the Big Bang theory itself, comes in the form of the cosmic microwave background and the continued expansion of the Universe.[2]

 

[magnifier661]

You spew bullshit in post after post.

Nobody said the singularity is observed, nor does it need to be. There is a mountain of evidence that they occur throughout the universe.

I don't have faith in the unobservable, only in which there is a mountain of evidence in support.

Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

It is impossible to see the singularity or the actual Big Bang itself, as time and space did not exist inside the singularity and, therefore, there would be no way to transmit any radiation from before the Big Bang to the present day. However, evidence for the existence of an initial singularity, and the Big Bang theory itself, comes in the form of the cosmic microwave background and the continued expansion of the Universe.[2]

Wikipedia... LOL

Again, your "EVIDENCE" is only on the concept of singularity actually being the genesis. What it doesn't explain is "What is singularity?" And since you cannot observe singularity as of now, your "IDEOLOGY" is faith driven on "SINGULARITY" being something completely natural and without God.

I think the "Faith Group" just nominated you as the GRAND POOBAH of atheism.

 

[Denny Crane]

What is singularity?

That's well defined. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

The evidence is the cosmic microwave background, observed red shift in the starts (expansion of the universe) and much more.

I don't have this absolute belief in what the science says. I believe what the science says is the best explanation, by far, of any suggested.

I think your "faith group" schtick is more utter bullshit and a sign you're willing to dig your hole even deeper with every post you make.

 

[magnifier661]

What is singularity?

That's well defined. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

The evidence is the cosmic microwave background, observed red shift in the starts (expansion of the universe) and much more.

I don't have this absolute belief in what the science says. I believe what the science says is the best explanation, by far, of any suggested.

I think your "faith group" schtick is more utter bullshit and a sign you're willing to dig your hole even deeper with every post you make.

Oh okay, so now you aren't so sure... You are just being agnostic... My bad... I thought you were an atheist.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh okay, so now you aren't so sure... You are just being agnostic... My bad... I thought you were an atheist.

I am an atheist. You just keep on posting wrong shit.

I have seen ZERO evidence of any "god." No reason to take some irrational leap of faith. Literally.

Science may revise its explanation as the evidence suggests it should be revised. I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[magnifier661]

I am an atheist. You just keep on posting wrong shit.

I have seen ZERO evidence of any "god." No reason to take some irrational leap of faith. Literally.

Science may revise its explanation as the evidence suggests it should be revised. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Yes like that irrational leap of faith that abiogenesis or singularity were just natural "not observed" phenomenons.

 

[Denny Crane]

You fail because there is no "leap" and the concept is as observed as the bug that ate from the plant. That is, there is evidence left behind by these phenomenons that indicate they do exist. Just as the hole in the leaf left by the bug.

Thus rational. Thus, you are posting more bullshit.

 

[magnifier661]

You fail because there is no "leap" and the concept is as observed as the bug that ate from the plant. That is, there is evidence left behind by these phenomenons that indicate they do exist. Just as the hole in the leaf left by the bug.

Thus rational. Thus, you are posting more bullshit.

You keep bringing up the bug eating the tomato. The problem with that argument is there are plenty of observations past, present and future where we can observe a bug eating a tomato, document that observation and peer review this observation with other tomato eating bug scientists.

Not swayed...

 

[Denny Crane]

You keep bringing up the bug eating the tomato. The problem with that argument is there are plenty of observations past, present and future where we can observe a bug eating a tomato, document that observation and peer review this observation with other tomato eating bug scientists.

Not swayed...

There are plenty of observations, past, present, and future that suggest the big bang. You ignoring them, denying them, or wishing them away doesn't change the fact they exist and are in the public record.

There are NO observations of a "god."

You won't be swayed from posting bullshit over and over. I get that. EVERYONE does.

 

[magnifier661]

There are plenty of observations, past, present, and future that suggest the big bang. You ignoring them, denying them, or wishing them away doesn't change the fact they exist and are in the public record.

There are NO observations of a "god."

You won't be swayed from posting bullshit over and over. I get that. EVERYONE does.

Weird... It seems you believe I do not believe in the BIG BANG. Seems it is you that has a comprehension problem.

 

[BrianFromWA]

so back to the survey, this expounds a bit more. Like I said, those who go to church every Sunday have gone up. Those who just called themselves Christian, well, they feel free to call themselves something else now. Which is fine, but hardly newsworthy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...cans-christians-evangelicals-column/27198423/

 

[Denny Crane]

Learn something.

http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.

 

[Denny Crane]

Weird... It seems you believe I do not believe in the BIG BANG. Seems it is you that has a comprehension problem.

Yet you keep calling it a fairy tale.

 

[BrianFromWA]

so back to the survey, this expounds a bit more. Like I said, those who go to church every Sunday have gone up. Those who just called themselves Christian, well, they feel free to call themselves something else now. Which is fine, but hardly newsworthy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...cans-christians-evangelicals-column/27198423/

 

[Denny Crane]

so back to the survey, this expounds a bit more. Like I said, those who go to church every Sunday have gone up. Those who just called themselves Christian, well, they feel free to call themselves something else now. Which is fine, but hardly newsworthy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...cans-christians-evangelicals-column/27198423/

Seems like spin to me.

 

[magnifier661]

Learn something.

http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.

By Jorge I think you got it!

Denny believes the Big Bang Theory. Atheists believe that the BIG BANG started naturally from singularity, even though they haven't observed singularity once. Therefor God did not create the Universe.

LOGIC... LOL

 

[magnifier661]

Yet you keep calling it a fairy tale.

Nope, I don't believe that it is a fairy tale... I am merely using your absurd logic of believing in something that has not been observed a fairy tale.

POINT MAGS

 

[Denny Crane]

By Jorge I think you got it!

Denny believes the Big Bang Theory. Atheists believe that the BIG BANG started naturally from singularity, even though they haven't observed singularity once. Therefor God did not create the Universe.

LOGIC... LOL

What a stretch.

Inductive reasoning is:
1. there is cosmic microwave background detectable everywhere
2. everything in the universe is moving away from everything else (at an accelerating rate even)
3. Why is this?

If distance between point a and point b is expanding and the distance now is 10 feet, then what was the distance an hour ago? 10 hours ago?

Do tell.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nope, I don't believe that it is a fairy tale... I am merely using your absurd logic of believing in something that has not been observed a fairy tale.

POINT MAGS

Denny on court +7, mags on court -7.

 

[magnifier661]

What a stretch.

Inductive reasoning is:
1. there is cosmic microwave background detectable everywhere
2. everything in the universe is moving away from everything else (at an accelerating rate even)
3. Why is this?

If distance between point a and point b is expanding and the distance now is 10 feet, then what was the distance an hour ago? 10 hours ago?

Do tell.

God... Prove its not?

 

[magnifier661]

Denny on court +7, mags on court -7.

Denny = Delusional Rocket fans