(December 14, 2008 at 8:25 pm)Daystar Wrote: You are saying that a canopy of water around the planet earth, out in space, much like our ozone layer, wouldn't have that sort of effect? Interesting. Most atheists tend to do the opposite, saying that life itself wouldn't be possible. Has science taught you something new?

That argument holds no merit since a canopy of water around the Earth is impossible, so the question of whether life would be possible is irrelevant. Once something like a water canopy has been disproven science has nothing to say on whether life could exist with one...why would it?

Anyway, about your water canopy:
[youtube]uvprBLhJx_o[/youtube]

(December 14, 2008 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(December 14, 2008 at 8:25 pm)Daystar Wrote: Ah - in this case, just for you, EVF, evidence isn't required. I would add an amendment to that effect stipulating that "The Bible says God created man [...]" since the eventual demonstration of fact or fiction isn't relevant to the discussion.

If God is not relevant to the discussion why were you using the bible to address this topic if its only valid if its assumed that God exists or probably exists, and his word was true and good?

The discussion was not dependent upon the existence of God. It dealt with what the Bible says regarding a conopy of water surrounding the earth before the flood that was gone afterwards.

But why would what the bible says be considered valid, if you did not believe in the existence of God?
So you'd be quoting from the bible if you were an atheist? I doubt it.
How is the bible relevant to tourettes for those who don't believe in God? How would it be relevant to you if you didn't believe in God?

(December 14, 2008 at 8:25 pm)Daystar Wrote: Explain the logic underlieng that conclusion, please.

The flaw lies in the very thing that was designed to be prefect. These are not problems that occured after the fact, these are manufacturing errors.

(December 14, 2008 at 8:25 pm)Daystar Wrote: You are saying that a canopy of water around the planet earth, out in space, much like our ozone layer, wouldn't have that sort of effect? Interesting. Most atheists tend to do the opposite, saying that life itself wouldn't be possible. Has science taught you something new?

The lack of data on the subject forbids me from making such assurtions. The bible doesnt say how much water there was. It could have been three centimeters, it could have been three thousand million feet. I don't know if the following statement is true, but it seems to be the vibe im getting: The bible says there was enough water to cover the land.
If said statement is true then life as we know it wouldnt be possible. However, we're not talking about life as we know it. We're talking about magic land, where water is immune to the laws of gravity and some magic sky daddy snapped his fingers and people crawled out of the dirt.

Daystar your idea that "Man was created perfect by God" is a claim that you are making regarding this subject. And its a claim that you cannot make without believing in God.
So yes, your belief in God IS relevant.

(December 14, 2008 at 9:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But why would what the bible says be considered valid, if you did not believe in the existence of God?
So you'd be quoting from the bible if you were an atheist? I doubt it.

It doesn't matter if what the Bible says is considered as valid, the point was being established and could be considered as a possible relative portion at a later date.

If I were an atheist discussing the existance of God, the reality of the Bible itself or as in this case, the canopy of water I would - unlike yourself - consider the Bible in at least some way, relevant.

(December 14, 2008 at 9:03 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How is the bible relevant to tourettes for those who don't believe in God? How would it be relevant to you if you didn't believe in God?

[sigh]

I don't know. I am not sure, I didn't follow the entire thread. I don't remember. [begins to shake]

Tourettes was given by me as an example of a result of the Biblical sin. [begins to shout] What the hell is the point in being an Atheist at all?! What is the point in saying you don't believe in someone elses belief?! Forming a unbelief about someone elses belief becomes its own belief ...
[is taken away in a straight jacket screaming insane obscenities AND ... something about the number 400!]

(December 14, 2008 at 9:14 pm)Daystar Wrote: If I were an atheist discussing the existance of God, the reality of the Bible itself or as in this case, the canopy of water I would - unlike yourself - consider the Bible in at least some way, relevant.

Are you sure about that? You'd buy into the whole canopy thing even if you didn't believe the bible was truth?

Quote:[sigh]
I don't know. I am not sure, I didn't follow the entire thread. I don't remember. [begins to shake]
Tourettes was given by me as an example of a result of the Biblical sin. [begins to shout] What the hell is the point in being an Atheist at all?! What is the point in saying you don't believe in someone elses belief?! Forming a unbelief about someone elses belief becomes its own belief ...
[is taken away in a straight jacket screaming insane obscenities AND ... something about the number 400!]

Lol funny. Of course non-belief is not a belief! Its absence of a belief! You don't choose belief and you don't choose non-belief! Belief is not a matter of policy. Non-belief is not a belief! Its the opposite. If I don't believe then I don't believe do I? Don't believe doesn't=believe.
P.S: What is all this 400 about?

(December 14, 2008 at 9:30 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Are you sure about that? You'd buy into the whole canopy thing even if you didn't believe the bible was truth?

I didn't say that. I said that I would consider the Bible relevant when discussing things in the Bible whether or not I believed the Bible to be true. Just as if I were discussing Buddhism I would find Gautama or Buddhist text important when considering Buddhism. Or Richard Dawkins when considering Atheism.

[giggles insesantly at an upper case A in Atheism]

(December 14, 2008 at 9:30 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Lol funny. Of course non-belief is not a belief! Its absence of a belief! You don't choose belief and you don't choose non-belief! Belief is not a matter of policy. Non-belief is not a belief! Its the opposite. If I don't believe then I don't believe do I? Don't believe doesn't=believe.

I think that you mentioned that before and I was remiss in responding to it. Is belief a matter of policy. I have never considered it as such, meaning I have never given it consideration, but I suppose that it is. You choose belief. You form it based upon a variety of influences, from traditional to cultural, factual and spiritual. I also disagree that non belief isn't a belief. If you believe that there is most likely no gods that is a belief you have chosen regardless of your . . . evidence.

(December 14, 2008 at 9:30 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: P.S: What is all this 400 about?

Lol about the 400.
Anyway....
If you are born without a certain belief how is that a belief? If you no longer believe what you used to. How is that belief?
And how could you choose your beliefs unless you happened to believe that you could choose your beliefs?

(December 14, 2008 at 11:43 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Anyway....
If you are born without a certain belief how is that a belief? If you no longer believe what you used to. How is that belief?
And how could you choose your beliefs unless you happened to believe that you could choose your beliefs?

That doesn't even begin to make sense to me on any level that I could obtain at this hour.

But I will try.

You are not born with belief, belief forms like most every thing else as one matures. At a certain age, depending upon the level of maturity of the person, beliefs are more carefully examined and one may separate from influences of a cultural or traditional nature in exchange for a more personal and substantial pardigm.

One chooses what they want to believe based upon a variety of criteria regarding any subject.

Beliefs change. I used to believe that there was no such thing as a god. True, at the time that is the way I was raised and I didn't even know what a god really was, but ... nevertheless that is what I believed. I chose to believe. This changed when I educated myself on the subject and realized I was wrong.

---

(December 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm)rjh Wrote: The flaw lies in the very thing that was designed to be prefect. These are not problems that occured after the fact, these are manufacturing errors.

Well, that isn't true though. The Bible says that they would die only if they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad. Had they not done so there wouldn't be any flaws.

(December 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm)rjh Wrote: The lack of data on the subject forbids me from making such assurtions. The bible doesnt say how much water there was. It could have been three centimeters, it could have been three thousand million feet. I don't know if the following statement is true, but it seems to be the vibe im getting: The bible says there was enough water to cover the land.
If said statement is true then life as we know it wouldnt be possible. However, we're not talking about life as we know it. We're talking about magic land, where water is immune to the laws of gravity and some magic sky daddy snapped his fingers and people crawled out of the dirt.

Don't be like all the others . . . please? I don't ask that you be like me but don't be like all the others . . .

4
0
0
!