America Retreating from Religion

[Matt Dillon]

No...truth needs to be understood.

truth? you sound like cultsmasher, what truth?

[Hawkeye10]

truth? you sound like cultsmasher, what truth?

The truth is that like Europe AMerica is increasingly Post Christian....which might have a lot to do with the collapse of the West.

We need to think about this...investigate this.

[Grokmaster]

ORGANIZED RELIGION =/= BELIEF IN GOD.


THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN GOD.




CHOKE ON IT, LEFTIDIOTS.




The highest level of belief (87%) comes from a simple yes/no question, "Do you believe in God?" which Gallup last asked in 2017.

Belief drops to 79% when respondents are given three options, one being God is something they believe in. The rest are either not sure whether they believe in God or firmly say they do not believe in God.




https://news.gallup.com/poll/268205/...lieve-god.aspx



LESS THAN 4% OF AMERICANS IDENTIFY AS ATHEISTS.

[Into the Night]

ORGANIZED RELIGION =/= BELIEF IN GOD.


THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN GOD.




CHOKE ON IT, LEFTIDIOTS.




The highest level of belief (87%) comes from a simple yes/no question, "Do you believe in God?" which Gallup last asked in 2017.

Belief drops to 79% when respondents are given three options, one being God is something they believe in. The rest are either not sure whether they believe in God or firmly say they do not believe in God.




https://news.gallup.com/poll/268205/...lieve-god.aspx



LESS THAN 4% OF AMERICANS IDENTIFY AS ATHEISTS.

Polls are completely meaningless.

[CFM]

You need a God to tell you what's right and what's wrong?

^^^Determines right from wrong based on the direction the wind is blowing that day.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

Polls are completely meaningless.

If you totally deny reality. Otherwise you should look into how representative is the sampling and whether the pollsters set out to show something or other deliberately, like a lot of the trumper stuff.

[Cypress]

No, you just can't answer these questions.

That was once thought of the atom. See the meaning of 'atom'.

Yes they are.

So?

So far. Once the atom itself was thought of as such. Once elements themselves were though of as such, even back to the days when everything was thought to made of fire, water, air, spirit, and earth. I suggest you study the history of what was once considered the 'ultimate constituents of matter'. It's actually an entertaining story, as are most parts of the history of science. You see, I don't just study science, I also study the history of how theories came to be and how they were tested for their null hypothesis. It's also an interesting study on the various models that these theories use.

Remember what we 'know' of atoms and their particles is a model, nothing more. It could all change tomorrow. Theories of science have been falsified before, you know.


No. Energy is not a field. Gravity is not energy. It is a force. Light, which is energy, has no field (according to our current model).

Lame. You couldn't come up with a better insult than that?

You have already made several important mistakes in quantum physics. This is not unusual, most people never even get as far as you have with it.

Good Lord, I will let you continue having a conversation with yourself, since you obviously are responding to what you wish I said, rather than what I actually said.

For the record, concerning quantum mechanics, you once claimed and complained to me that it was not a branch of physics -- and there are posts to proving you made that foolish claim.

[Jack]

Okay. Fine. Then you are quite properly an atheist.

Atheists are just as sure there ISN'T a God, as you are that there IS a God. There's no proof either way, so why should I waste my time on it?

[Into the Night]

Good Lord, I will let you continue having a conversation with yourself, since you obviously are responding to what you wish I said, rather than what I actually said.

For the record, concerning quantum mechanics, you once claimed and complained to me that it was not a branch of physics -- and there are posts to proving you made that foolish claim.

It is not a branch of physics. I will say it again, right here, just to be clear. It has more to do with mathematics and modeling than anything else. It is considered it's own branch of science. it is not part of physics.

[Grokmaster]

Polls are completely meaningless.

THE ENTIRE THREAD IS BASED ON A POLL. WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THE DISCUSSION?

[Into the Night]

Atheists are just as sure there ISN'T a God, as you are that there IS a God. There's no proof either way, so why should I waste my time on it?

Okay. Fine. You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?

[Grokmaster]

Atheists are just as sure there ISN'T a God, as you are that there IS a God. There's no proof either way, so why should I waste my time on it?

NOT ACCORDING TO THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS....

[Into the Night]

THE ENTIRE THREAD IS BASED ON A POLL. WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THE DISCUSSION?

Pointing out once again that polls are completely meaningless.

The problem with polls like this is that they do not follow the requirements of statistical mathematics.

* The raw data MUST be available. The raw data MUST be free of biasing influences. Failure to publish unbiased raw data invalidates the summary.
* A summary MUST be accompanied by the margin of error, or the summary is completely meaningless.
* Data used in the summary MUST be selected from the raw data by randN. Any other method renders the summary meaningless.
* Data MUST be normalized by paired randR. Failure to do so incorporates out of band data, and renders the summary meaningless.
* The variance MUST be declared and justified. Failure to do so prevents calculation of the margin of error value, which is required.
* Statistical math is incapable of prediction, normally inherent in mathematics, due to it's use of random numbers. Even two summaries, performed over the SAME raw data will produce different results.

News polls do NONE of these things. They simply announce some value (and possibly something that looks like a margin of error value) as if it were some kind of decree.

Statistical math has it's uses, but prediction isn't one of them. Simply specifying a summary without showing the data is just making stuff up. Pollsters make a lot of money out of making stuff up. Someone is paying them to do it. The stuff they make up will tend to bend toward whoever is paying the bill. They are not a crystal ball or a set of holy entrails. They cannot predict the future. They cannot show a 'trend' so popular in the Fake News and government today.

I do not even consider ANY raw data as possibly useful without some pretty specific requirements. Too many people spew numbers as 'facts' these days. Among those requirements are:

* The source of the raw data must be known. I must know who collected it, when it was collected, how it was collected, and the purpose of collecting it.
* The raw data MUST be published. The collection method MUST be published.
* If instrumentation was used, I must know what instrumentation it was, its tolerances, when it was last calibrated and how, and how the instrument is maintained and used.

My standards of accepting numbers from people is considerably higher than the average Joe here. They are not unreasonable. I recommend more people adopt these standards at the very least. It would do much to shut out lies and people making shit up.

[Jack]

Okay. Fine. You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?

UNKNOWN

[Jack]

NOT ACCORDING TO THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS....

Uh, Grok. You can use the same reasoning for people in the Middle East believing in 72 Virgins at the End of the Road.