Is that your opinion or the authors ? What do you know about the study to offer that opinion ? Unless you are a author or helped design/conduct the study - your opinion is invalid.
And as such, so is yours.
Where did the study rate answers to the questions it asked against the individual participant's definition of god or religion? Where, anywhere at all in the study, was the person asked their definition of god or religion? Where was the individual asked their religion?
It didn't. Hence, this was not part of the body of data gathered, and thus, could not be in the scope of the study.
I would speculate you know nothing about the study or how it was conducted.
I'd speculate the same thing about you.
Chances are I could probably come up with a couple more but I think that will suffice for the moment.
Questions are easy to come up with. Valid ones take a bit more thought.
Btw, as usual you missed the major point. I believe religion was in context of the study since it mentioned 4 religions in the questions where as God (characteristics) were not. With that being said, the emphasis was obviously on religion and therefore biased.
Sure, religion was in the context of the survey. Again, the definition of religion was not. Therefore, you defining religion does not alter the study nor the interpretation of its results at all
, which was the point I was making. Nothing more. This study was not biased at all, it asked the same questions to everyone no matter who they were, no matter if they called themselves religious or not, and no matter what sentence fragment they used to describe their own definition of god.
(btw, this is when you come back with a really stupid comeback).
Hahaha... you're on the pre-comeback stage of forum debate degeneracy already?
There is a quite a bit of difference between religion and God.
Nobody's arguing with this.
God has and is and always existed outside of religion (think past, present, and future).
Your logic assumes god exists at all which you have not proven.
Of if this helps, it is fine to make a distinction between religon and state.
Something the average American idiot seems to have more and more trouble doing every day.
However, not God since "He is" (de facto).
God is not. And you have precisely
as much concrete proof god exists as I have that he does not. Thus, by definition, you have not successfully argued for proof of god.