(March 2, 2015 at 11:12 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 10:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm going to go with "moron" for a true Daily Double, Alex. Bet it all.

Ahh... I'm afraid you didn't phrase your answer in the form of a question... so...

Nice...lol, my wife and I try to watch Jeopady every night. I keep a mental score. She's a nurse and kills me on the medical questions, I win the rest! Mwah-ha ha!

Foiled again!

Yeah, just keep changing the subject and ignoring facts, Huggy, that'll show us!

Are we talking about placebo and confirmation bias again?

Why does religion always come down to this? Weird.

(March 3, 2015 at 5:03 am)robvalue Wrote: Are we talking about placebo and confirmation bias again?

Why does religion always come down to this? Weird.

Don't you play coy, Rob.

...you know the answer to that.

(March 2, 2015 at 10:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: No. Once again, I invite you to brush up on your reading skills. I want a source discussing translations of "faith" from Hebrew to English that are done by scholars. I'm not looking for "Bible translations", because Christians are inherently untrustworthy on the topic, given their motivation to round off the uncomfortable corners that diligent scholarship puts upon their holy text.

So, you have an academic source? No? I didn't think so. You read in an echo chamber, and expect me to accept that as evidence?

Sorry, you might be a purblind fool, but I have higher standards. Do keep up.

Strong's concordance IS an academic source you muppet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance

Quote:Strong's Concordance includes:

The 8674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament. (Example: Hebrew word #582 in Strong's Concordance)
The 5624 Greek root words used in the New Testament. (Example: Greek word #3056 in Strong's)

James Strong did not construct Strong's Concordance by himself; it was constructed with the effort of more than a hundred colleagues. It has become the most widely used concordance for the King James Bible.

But that seems to be your MO, whenever you are presented with evidence that destroys your argument, you assert that the evidence is invalid. Based on what?

I'll prove that you tried to pull this same stunt before.

You sir, are a clown.
If only I could find a way to fit than in a sig....

So no, I'm not going to do another retarded dance with you, either post evidence that my info is incorrect, or shut your pie hole.

(March 3, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 10:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: No. Once again, I invite you to brush up on your reading skills. I want a source discussing translations of "faith" from Hebrew to English that are done by scholars. I'm not looking for "Bible translations", because Christians are inherently untrustworthy on the topic, given their motivation to round off the uncomfortable corners that diligent scholarship puts upon their holy text.

So, you have an academic source? No? I didn't think so. You read in an echo chamber, and expect me to accept that as evidence?

Sorry, you might be a purblind fool, but I have higher standards. Do keep up.

Strong's concordance IS an academic source you muppet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance

Quote:Strong's Concordance includes:

The 8674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament. (Example: Hebrew word #582 in Strong's Concordance)
The 5624 Greek root words used in the New Testament. (Example: Greek word #3056 in Strong's)

James Strong did not construct Strong's Concordance by himself; it was constructed with the effort of more than a hundred colleagues. It has become the most widely used concordance for the King James Bible.

But that seems to be your MO, whenever you are presented with evidence that destroys your argument, you assert that the evidence is invalid. Based on what?

Based on the fact that he had the motive of demonstrating an interpretation of the Bible. That's not quite objective, now is it?

What a dumbfuck. You really need to step up your thinking.

(March 3, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I'll prove that you tried to pull this same stunt before.

---

Remember what you stated when I posted the Gallup world poll on happiness?

(January 6, 2015 at 11:50 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: An opinion poll is not a report. It can be done in a few days with no problem.

A report, on the other hand, requires some time to gather and collate the data into a sensible whole, because it is not a simple telephone poll -- which are inherently biased -- but rather, a collection of statistics drawn out to find data.

So I guess it's not only christians that have a bias, people that do surveys also have a bias...

(January 7, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: If you think a phone poll is of the same probative value as collated data, you're not as smart as I had thought -- and believe me, I've been underwhelmed by your intellect, such as it is, for quite some time now.

Once again, questioning the validity of Gallup....
But here's the kicker..

(January 8, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Here you go, this one works: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/201...online.pdf

Now if you go to page 93 of this report, you'll find the list of references the authors used.

Not one of them is the Gallup Organization.

The fact that you don't know the difference between a report and an opinion poll speaks volumes about your education, or lack thereof.

Except Gallup was mentioned 37 times in that report...
To quote the report.

Quote:Our biggest debt of gratitude is to the Gallup Organization
for complete and timely access to the data from all years of
the Gallup World Poll.

oops!
And then after all the disparaging remarks about gallup, you use them to try and make a point.

(January 15, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Also, another map from the Wiki:



Looks like Denmark is listed as "least religious".

This is the difference between de facto and de jure, alluded to upthread.

---

If only I could find a way to fit than in a sig....

So no, I'm not going to do another retarded dance with you, either post evidence that my info is incorrect, or shut your pie hole.

Perhaps you should learn how to determine whether a source is objective or biased, and select sources which are worthy of scrutiny ... you muppet.

Remember, I've already pointed out that half of your bible, which also uses the word "faith" was written in Greek, rendering your point pointless. And I've also shown how your understanding of the English word "faith" is clearly an equivocation. the only thing else I have to show you is the door.

So --



Dumbfuck.

Someone seems to be butthurt.

lol

oh and by the way, the Greek translation
http://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm

Quote:pistis: faith, faithfulness
Original Word: πίστις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pistis
Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis)
Short Definition: faith, belief, trust
Definition: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.

See? It doesn't make a difference..
what's your excuse now?

Oh, it's not "butthurt", child -- it's contempt.

Do you need me to look that up for you as well ... muppet?