13.7 billion yrs universe vs 4.3 billion earth yrs

[dayage]

Thank you Gman. Just had to take a break, but it is nice to get resharpened (Proverbs 27:17).

[rstrats]

willevjas,

re: “A friend of mine who isn't atheist or theist...”


That can't be - they have to be one or the other.

[Canuckster1127]

willevjas,

re: “A friend of mine who isn't atheist or theist...”


That can't be - they have to be one or the other.

Technically, an agnostic would be neither.

[rstrats]

Canuckster1127,

re: “Technically, an agnostic would be neither.”


Technically, an atheist or a theist could also be an agnostic. A theist is simply someone who believes in a deity or deities. An atheist is simply someone without a belief in a deity or deities. There is no other possibility - either you believe or you don't.

[DannyM]

Technically, an atheist or a theist could also be an agnostic.

Incorrect.

A theist is simply someone who believes in a deity or deities.

Correct.

An atheist is simply someone without a belief in a deity or deities.

Incorrect. An atheist graduates from the "lack thereof" to a BELIEF that there is no god or gods.

There is no other possibility - either you believe or you don't.

True. But the atheist BELIEVES that there is no god or gods. The agnostic suspends any belief. We have three options: agnosticism STICKS (there is no "twist" involved here) at a lack of ANY belief; atheism and theism "TWIST" and COMMIT to a belief.

[rstrats]

DannyM,

re: “... the atheist BELIEVES that there is no god or gods.”

That describes what is defined as a “strong” atheist. Someone who simply is without a belief is defined as a “weak” atheist.


re: “The agnostic suspends any belief.”

And that by definition makes them an atheist.

[DannyM]

DannyM,

re: “... the atheist BELIEVES that there is no god or gods.”

That describes what is defined as a “strong” atheist. Someone who simply is without a belief is defined as a “weak” atheist.


re: “The agnostic suspends any belief.”

And that by definition makes them an atheist.

rstrats,

Look, if that's what you believe, then I have no problem with that as such. But when I see this kind of stuff it just boggles my mind. Your talk of a "strong" atheist being an ACTUAL atheist is just absurd in my opinion. Strong/weak can determine how "committed" the atheist is; but a "weak" atheist, if there IS such a thing, is nevertheless STILL an atheist.

Yes, the atheist SUSPENDS belief in a god or gods. That is true. But the atheist does not stay there- the atheist moves from this suspension of belief in a god or gods and commits to a BELIEF that there is no god or gods, thus moving AWAY from the position of a lack of any belief.

Your definitions are, in my opinion, typical of the post-modern, watered down nonsense which just does not wash if we are going to stay true to these terms and their connotations.

[rstrats]

DannyM,

re: “Your talk of a 'strong' atheist being an ACTUAL atheist is just absurd...”

What???? What is absurd about it?


re: “... a 'weak' atheist, if there IS such a thing, is nevertheless STILL an atheist.”

Of course they are, That's what I've been saying.



re: “ ...the atheist does not stay there- the atheist moves from this suspension of belief in a god or gods and commits to a BELIEF that there is no god or gods.”

Some do and some don't. Either way, they are still atheists - without a belief in the existence of deities.

[Gman]

DannyM,

re: “Your talk of a 'strong' atheist being an ACTUAL atheist is just absurd...”

What???? What is absurd about it?

That you have no evidence that there isn't a God....

[DannyM]

DannyM,re: “Your talk of a 'strong' atheist being an ACTUAL atheist is just absurd...”
What???? What is absurd about it?
re: “... a 'weak' atheist, if there IS such a thing, is nevertheless STILL an atheist.”
Of course they are, That's what I've been saying.
re: “ ...the atheist does not stay there- the atheist moves from this suspension of belief in a god or gods and commits to a BELIEF that there is no god or gods.”
Some do and some don't. Either way, they are still atheists - without a belief in the existence of deities.

So you're saying htat a "strong" atheist is an atheist but a "weak" atheist is not an atheist? Wow, waydda go champ!

[dayage]

Ok All,

Dr. Ross (Reasons to Believe) and Dr. Lisle (Answers in Genesis) will be debating the age of the universe on the Frank Pastore Show Wednesday 3/31/10 (5 PM, PT; 7 Central). Here is a link

http://www.kkla.com/LocalHosts/4/

Dr. Lisle had publicly agreed to debate Dr. Ross in on the Ankerberg show in front of professional Christian astronomers, but backed out. Dr. Danny Faulkner did follow through with the challenge. The group of astronomers is supposed to give their report on the evidence presented.

In front of a lay audience it is easy to say what you want, but in front of experts in the field, it's a different story.

[rstrats]

DannyM,

re: “So you're saying htat a... 'weak' atheist is not an atheist?”

Where on earth did you read that. I said just the opposite.

[dayage]

The group of astronomers have given their report on the earlier Faulkner/Ross debate.
http://www.reasons.org/special-edition- ... e-universe

Don't forget the debate tonight that I mentioned above.

[RickD]

The group of astronomers have given their report on the earlier Faulkner/Ross debate.
http://www.reasons.org/special-edition- ... e-universe

Don't forget the debate tonight that I mentioned above.

dayage, Are you saying that the debate isn't between Ross and Lisle? I was sooo looking forward to that. I'm not familiar with Faulkner. Is he with AIG?

[dayage]

Sorry if I confused anyone. The debate tonight is between Lisle and Ross. Dr. Faulkner is with The Institute For Creation Research (ICR).

I made a new Topic about these debates "The age of the universe."