FIrst of all, I dont want this to seem, ANTI RELIGOUS, or anything like that. I am simply asking if anyone out there that is smarter than myself can answer this.

I go to Church of Christ. MY preacher basically beleives, all science that has anything to do with the earth being over 6000 years old is false. He tried to explain to me the way you can date the earth according to the bible, that would set the date of creation somewhere in the ballpark of 6000 years. He also made clear to me that EVERYTHING was created then. (Heaven, Universe, Earth, ect...) But I dont think this is true.

I know there are many people out there that are agnostic and so forth, but I am not. I do beleive in something greater, I am just not sure if I beleive what '90% of the religions out there are preaching.

TO get to my question:

We can somewhat accurately measure the distance a star is from earth. I think they use red shift and stuff liek that too measure, Im no expert in the field so correct me if I am wrong. But they say they can measure it to within +- 100 light years or so, or somewhere in that ballpark.

We have measured stars to be somewhere around 500 million light years away. Meaning that the light would have taken 500mil ly to travel from there to earth, So the star would have to be way older then what they say earht is. (6k)So the universe would have to have been created(or whatever) millions of years ago, right?

I am only a junior in high school, and I am no expert in these fields. But I think everyone will get the picture here of what I am talking about.

There's a wonderful little thing called "carbon dating" that shows us that the earth is older than 6000 years. Most/all fossils seem to show their dates in correspondance to their place in evolution, so to say it isn't accurate or whatever is gibberish and should be dismissed as such.

As well as plate tectonics.

It is good that we have such young posters coming in. Don't worry, in time we will break your faith. :D

Carbon dating is not perfect.

But most religion is a bunch of bullshit. They preach the good morals, but the humans that run it abuse their power and brainwash so many. It has its bad and its good.

I am a non-denominational Theist, and they have not "broke" my faith.

Don't be a sheep and follow the rest of everyone here. There are barely ANY agnostics here, why? Because of the atheistic influence and the pejorative actions taken against agnostics.

Amphion,

Welcome to sciforums.

There are many scientific methods which can be used to date the age of things on the Earth. Radioactive dating is just one method. It does not rely on one particular element. Carbon dating is only one kind of radioactive dating. Different methods (both radioactive and other methods) can and have been cross-checked agaisnt each other so that we can be sure they are accurate.

The best estimate for the age of the Earth is currently about 4,500,000,000 years. That is considerably older than 6000 years. There is much evidence even of human existence prior to 6000 years ago, from fossils and so on.

The age of the universe as a whole is, from memory, about 15,000,000,000 years.

Amphion:

But I dont think this is true.

*Smiles*

It is a proven scientific fact (assuming objective reality exists, of course) that the earth is over 6000 years old.

http://nova.bsuvc.bsu.edu/prn/oldearth.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Hope those help. I'm a bit tired to explain this very well, but basically, there are several different ways of determining the age of the earth, and they all give the same age, and this age is about 4.5 billion years.

In addition to this, you might have a bit of fun asking your pastor which Biblical creation account is the correct one (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html)

Have fun posting. Religion is more or less dead, perchance you can liven things up.

Chosen:

We do not use carbon dating to ascertain the age of the earth, luv. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Carbon dating only works up to about a half mya.

And it is a perfectly valid method, with some flaws that are not in any way relevent to this debate.

And that is such a young date too. That cuts off a good degree of Mesopotamian activity. And then where did all these dinosaur bones come from.
We have measured stars to be somewhere around 500 million light years away. Meaning that the light would have taken 500mil ly to travel from there to earth, So the star would have to be way older then what they say earht is. (6k)So the universe would have to have been created(or whatever) millions of years ago, right?
That is the other big marker.

The geometry of the universe would require a longer period of existence in the current form for the light to reach the Earth. The number is probably in the billions though.

The Bible is also not the only written historical document. There are plenty of others that predate that book with a higher accuracy in events. There are other assertions the bible makes that have been proven wrong. A worldwide flood is another good example. If anything it was a local flood. Chock any of these discrephencies to a typical knack in mythology for creative exageration. Have your grain of salt handy.

I see a lot of discussion on evolution vs creation topics. It actually disturbs me somewhat that so many people have been led to assume that one or the other has to be right. Mabye neither or right. Can there be two theories from which one must choose to describe the limitless possibilities that the universe contains. The origin of life and even the universe could stem from a source that we have not considered because we were to busy arguing about the impenetrability of our own particular beliefs that are based on ony two options. Do not be afraid to explore what may be possible in this universe. Or even your life. Proving one is right does not contribute much to the understanding of the natural world. Proving that you may be right based on what you have observed does. Observations are limited by perspective. Being right is limited by observation. That is my opinion, and I welcome any input that anyone would care to contribute.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Don't be a sheep and follow the rest of everyone here. There are barely ANY agnostics here, why? Because of the atheistic influence and the pejorative actions taken against agnostics.

No, it's more because most of us are capable of making a decision based on logic. Maybe you could appeal to the government and try to get the laws changed about how you poor agnostics are being systematically repressed by the atheists? You might get a grant or something...

Originally posted by Squid Vicious


No, it's more because most of us are capable of making a decision based on logic. Maybe you could appeal to the government and try to get the laws changed about how you poor agnostics are being systematically repressed by the atheists? You might get a grant or something...

Give me a break :rolleyes:

Agnostics are cowardly atheists? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Amphion
I go to Church of Christ. MY preacher basically beleives, all science that has anything to do with the earth being over 6000 years old is false. He tried to explain to me the way you can date the earth according to the bible, that would set the date of creation somewhere in the ballpark of 6000 years. He also made clear to me that EVERYTHING was created then. (Heaven, Universe, Earth, ect...) But I dont think this is true.

What a damn loser, what's his education level?!?! He is REALLY brainwashed. :D Tell him to cease the lies and go study some scientific books about the earth.

I know there are many people out there that are agnostic and so forth, but I am not. I do beleive in something greater, I am just not sure if I beleive what '90% of the religions out there are preaching.

I am a fellow theist. And yes I do believe in something greater, just some type of creator. Not "God is GOOD! God is love! You'll go to heaven! God is watching you!" :rolleyes: Please spare me that crap. :D

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~


Give me a break :rolleyes:

Agnostics are cowardly atheists? :rolleyes:

er, no, I said atheists have made a decision. I'd post you a dictionary, but it costs too much, and besides you appear to have a mild case of paranoia and would probably think its a bomb.

No, it's more because most of us are capable of making a decision based on logic. Maybe you could appeal to the government and try to get the laws changed about how you poor agnostics are being systematically repressed by the atheists? You might get a grant or something...

Oh man, you see the inherent violence in the system?

We do not use carbon dating to ascertain the age of the earth, luv. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Carbon dating only works up to about a half mya.

50000 years actually. You can stretch it to about 70000 but it really starts to suck. Tested against old stuff with a known date, eg. the DDS it fares well. It is plenty accurate to shoot down te 6000K idea.
You'd use Pb/Pb Isochron for dating the Earth.

The best way to shove it up the Pastor's is to point out structures that are obviously older than this:

- dendrochronology

- coral reefs

- varves

- Ice layers

- Jericho- dates back to 8000BC

- This lake in Japan where an algal bloom leaves a seasonal layer of white, dead algae on the lake floor. Inbetween the blooms dark sediment deposits on the lake bed. By counting the annual layers of algal crap you can figure out how many years it has been happening. 45000 years, as it turns out.

The young earthers, dodge the light/ time problem, by suggesting that God made the light fully formed, as he did Adam and Eve. So he created the earth, the faraway galaxy and all the light inbetween at the same time. A Nice unfalsifiable theory.

Sorry guys, my browser was messing up. I would have repsonded earlier.

I did not mention the Carbon Dating because it only can accurately date back from 50000 to 70000 years, so theres really no accurate way to determine if things are millions of years old. using that method (At leats I think, im no expert so I could be wrong) Like I said, he has a pretty good argument for alot of things. But the deal with the stars is one thing you can not sit there and deny. Only way to say it is wrong is to flat out say that all sciene is false. Which we be totaly upsurd.

I beleive that there is something greater, but as to what it is I am not sure yet. But I do not beleive in what I am being taught now, and certianly not in any other religions. SO I do not know. I am not going to just say because of this they are all wrong. But I will study these things and try and figure out, to the best of my ability, what is something that I can beleive in. I am not a person who will just beleive what others say, and I think no one should either. When dealing with religion, find out for yourself. Because, I have been focre fed this relgion all my life, untill resently things started to pop into my head as I have studied science. If I had just listend to what I was told, who knows.....

Sorry for the long posts, I just wanted to get this out there.

Humans (or similar species) have been around approx. 2million years.

Even if Carbon Dating isn't that accurate, the margin of error still makes that 6k idea look a little thin

Voodoo, you put 6000k, thats 6,000,000 years. What are you on?

Does you preacher know that the Earth is in fact round?:D

Oops, you're right. That whole post was fatigue induced blah.

The earth is in fact disc shaped and is supported by 4 elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle.

Don't be a sheep and follow the rest of everyone here. There are barely ANY agnostics here, why? Because of the atheistic influence and the pejorative actions taken against agnostics.

Yes, I was an agnostic until I came here. They put me under this satano-secular hypno ray and I consequently changed my worldview.
A more plausible explanation is that a sciencey forum attracts sciency members. Sciency types are predisposed to logic, empircism, materialism etc. Hence the lack of those that entertain the absurd.

Yes, I was an agnostic until I came here. They put me under this satano-secular hypno ray and I consequently changed my worldview.

*Mutters*

And here I was thinking that it was the ritualistic sex that changed your mind.

(Yes, everything is about sex for me. Everything. :p )

Originally posted by Xev
(Yes, everything is about sex for me. Everything. :p )

Ha gyrl, and that's the one thing that's going to control you :D You're no fun anyways :o

Voodoo, this isn't a Terry Pratchett novel you know

Who is Terry Pratchett?

Hope those help. I'm a bit tired to explain this very well, but basically, there are several different ways of determining the age of the earth, and they all give the same age, and this age is about 4.5 billion years.
bullsh*t BULLSH*T BULLSH*T BULLSH*T BULLSH*T. Why do people come up with lies like this to try to prove that god doesnt exist. even if ur right, get ur facts straight so people can make thier own minds up. "there is no scientific test anywhere that will point to the earth being older than 1 million years." David T. Moore. The following is not my own work but i agree with it strongly!! Prove it wrong (if u can).
Evolutionary biologists have been quoted as saying that "it couldnt have happened (the universe appearing on its own) but we choose to believe it because the only alternative is creation."
The fossil record -if evolution is true there should be a subtle appearance of simple life forms and a smooth transition with no gaps up to present day man. if creation is true then there should be a sudden appearance of creatures and there will be huge gaps. Worlds leading evolutionist "the gaps are missing right where we want them the most" the missing link is still missing!!!!! Even if the world/universe is billions of years old, the evidence still points to creation! 4.5 billion years is the assumption for the length of time the world has existed. this assumption is based on the fact that it takes at least this long for evolution to occur.
Geo-cronology -the science of trying to date the earth. (not buying it drinks etc :bugeye: ) This uses 80 different tests applied to different things on the earth. Geo-cronology is based upon the theory of uniformity i.e. if something is happening at this rate today then it is logical to assume that it happened at the same rate throughout history. If u backtrack this then u can work out how old the earth is.
example 1-cosmic dust. This falls throught our atmosphere and scientists have measured this and know exactly how much falls here. If u take the average that falls in any given month, and calculate this out to 4.5 billion years then there should be 50-60 feet of cosmic dust on earth. There is wind that blows it about and it could be washed into the sea but there are not such things on the moon. The dust should have been accumilating there. STILL should be 50-60 feet. When we visited the moon scietists were worried that the module would touch down and just dissapear into all so they put those feet on it, like snow shoes,to try to stop this happening. In actual fact, there was less than 3 inches of this cosmic dust. If u track THAT back then the earth is only 10,000 yrs old (max)
example 2-the earths magnetic field. This is weakening every year, as measured by science (which i know u all value and love so dearly ;) ). For 130 yrs it has been measured and it has lessened in intesity by 14% which is significant. If u calculate this back (assuming uniformality which all evolutionists accept) then 10,000 yrs ago it was so strong that no life could have survived on here. And if u go back 30,000 years then the magnetic field would have been so strong that the temprature on earth would have been 5,000 degrees!
example 3- the sun. The sun is getting smaller all the time. As it burns the gas it contains then it obviously loses it. Scientists (again lol) have been measing this and it is shrinking by 5 feet an hour. 1 million years ago it would have been so hot that nothing would be able to survive on the planet and 20 million years ago, scientists say that it would have been so large that it would have been touching the earth!!!! 4.5 billion years ago!???? i dont think so.
example 4-carbon dating,radiometric method etc. R.M measures volcanic material and measures the amount of radioactive decay. Moon rocks and moon soil were given 5 different R.M testing. The soil dated 4 different dates with 4 different tests. These dates spanned 4 billion years. Oh yes. This is extremely accurate!! carbon 14 dates things that used to be alive. When u die u stop taking carbon 14 in so the less u have in u, the older u are and vice versa. Living Molluscs were dated at 2,300 years old!!!?? :confused: Organic material from castle mortar was dated. They knew the castle was 787yrs old yet carbon 14 dated it as 7370yrs old!!?? Freshly killed seals were dated as being 1300 yrs old. Mumified seals that had been dead for 30 years (they knew when they were killed) were dated at 4600 yrs. It has been discovered that water messes up the carbon 14 dating system. If there was a flood like some people believe and the whole planet was covered in water then this would throw the whole testing system away!!!! Evidence from everywhere shows that the earth is in fact much younger than we are told.

For those capable of coherent thought, see ... Ruminations of a Reluctant OEC (http://lordibelieve.org/time/AgeEarthTC.htm)
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2)
The Age of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html)Or, of course, you can always try and make some sense of This (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm).

By the way, if you insist upon mindless chatter about such things as: "Moon rocks and moon soil were given 5 different R.M testing. The soil dated 4 different dates with 4 different tests. These dates spanned 4 billion years." you should, at the very least, tell us which comic book you are using as your source. :rolleyes:

http://www.ulc.net/ordain.htm

This is hilarious. :p:D

Thanks.

Love

Jan Ardena

First calm down!

Remember that mutations are often very dramatic. The variance between the DNA of chimps and us are at 1%. I don't know who invented this stupid idea of a missing link. Organisms rarely fossilize. This process requires some extreme incident/snow. Remember also that this is more a situation of continuims. When you go back further the lines that you have set begin to blur. A hunt for a specific link in a continuim is counterproductive. You didn't specifically reference the Cambrian explosion, but from what I read this is the concept that you are using to define creation. Evidence refuting such a rapid appearance is being gathered:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Cambrian/controversies/timetable/timetable.html

The biggest error in creation theory is the fact that fossils exist. Certainly things deep within the Earth were not around during the last 5,000 years. That is not long enough for a species to develop and go extinct. Moreover humans and Dinosaurs could not have existed in the same period. Recorded history goes back for more than the 5,000 years anyway, but remember that the 5,000 years would require all organisms to occupy the planet at the same time. Why would humans be the most successful in the same place where the highest concentration of Dinoaur bones are found? The only way to subscribe to creation theory is by a regimental practice of bashing your head into to a blunt object to fascilitate the underlying need for ignorance.
The dust should have been accumilating there. STILL should be 50-60 feet. When we visited the moon scietists were worried that the module would touch down and just dissapear into all so they put those feet on it, like snow shoes,to try to stop this happening. In actual fact, there was less than 3 inches of this cosmic dust. If u track THAT back then the earth is only 10,000 yrs old (max)
All the dating I have seen for the moon place it older than the Earth. This is not compensating for the fact that the Earth is active. The Earth recycles its surface.

the earths magnetic field. This is weakening every year, as measured by science (which i know u all value and love so dearly ). For 130 yrs it has been measured and it has lessened in intesity by 14% which is significant. If u calculate this back (assuming uniformality which all evolutionists accept) then 10,000 yrs ago it was so strong that no life could have survived on here. And if u go back 30,000 years then the magnetic field would have been so strong that the temprature on earth would have been 5,000 degrees!
This just says we may be moving toward a field revesal. That means more raditiation- more of that non-existant mutation and another set of extinctions:

http://www.cosmiverse.com/space08240103.html

Living Molluscs were dated at 2,300 years old!!!?? Organic material from castle mortar was dated. They knew the castle was 787yrs old yet carbon 14 dated it as 7370yrs old!!?? Freshly killed seals were dated as being 1300 yrs old. Mumified seals that had been dead for 30 years (they knew when they were killed) were dated at 4600 yrs. It has been discovered that water messes up the carbon 14 dating system. If there was a flood like some people believe and the whole planet was covered in water then this would throw the whole testing system away!!!! Evidence from everywhere shows that the earth is in fact much younger than we are told.
This would all work out: except there is no evidence of massive flood. We say words: then we back them up with proof. You pretend to know so much of the sciences yet you ignore this fact.
example 3- the sun. The sun is getting smaller all the time. As it burns the gas it contains then it obviously loses it. Scientists (again lol) have been measing this and it is shrinking by 5 feet an hour. 1 million years ago it would have been so hot that nothing would be able to survive on the planet and 20 million years ago, scientists say that it would have been so large that it would have been touching the earth!!!! 4.5 billion years ago!???? i dont think so.
Who says this??? No scientist would have the sun with a 1AU radious. That is physically impossible. Have you ever heard of exponential change?

example 4-carbon dating,radiometric method etc. R.M measures volcanic material and measures the amount of radioactive decay. Moon rocks and moon soil were given 5 different R.M testing. The soil dated 4 different dates with 4 different tests. These dates spanned 4 billion years. Oh yes. This is extremely accurate!! carbon 14 dates things that used to be alive. When u die u stop taking carbon 14 in so the less u have in u, the older u are and vice versa.
At this point I know you are lying. Carbon 4 is not used to date beyond 50,000 years. Anything more is unreliable. Either you are lying or have gained some data from idiot scientists. I cannot say as I have been looking for confirmation of this information and have yet to find it. Did you get this garbage from a Creationist website?

what are you talking about!? i really cant bebothered argueing on frums like this. prefer chat rooms. Goodbye.
p.s you havent offered any kind of arguement to disprove what i was saying.http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeo.../timetable.html cant be bothered to read this. its boring! http://www.cosmiverse.com/space08240103.html yeah maybe. but its still boring :)

terry pratchett wrote the Discworld series

STOP FOLLOWING ME U GANG OF WIERDO'S!!!!!! This is private. u shouldnt be accessing my views like this!! Terry pratchett!!! i know ur there:bugeye:

Maybe it's boring because it's actually REAL science, unlike your 'sum of the square root of a piece of pie'?

BTW:

Pete, hon,
this is a public thread. Anybody can view it as long as they have the Internet and a browser that supports the scripts used on the page. If you wanted to keep your views private, you should've written them down on a piece of paper and locked it up in a safe.

DUH.

cant be bothered to read this. its boring!

What kind of reply were you expecting:bugeye:

conclusion - Pete is damn stupid/funny weirdo

p_ete2001 wrote:

what are you talking about!? i really cant bebothered argueing on frums like this. prefer chat rooms. ... you havent offered any kind of arguement to disprove what i was saying ... cant be bothered to read this. its boring!
So much for Intelligent Design ... :D

Maybe it's boring because it's actually REAL science, unlike your 'sum of the square root of a piece of pie'? EVERYONE knows that it is absolutely impossible to find the square root of a peice of pie!! All pies (and their individual peices) do not have sufficient mass to measure such things. Even if they did, we do not currently have the technology to make an accurate measurement and therefore could not even make a credible guess!!

Pete is a hoax of some bored Sciforumers - 95%

and I can almost guess who;):D

EVERYONE knows that it is absolutely impossible to find the square root of a peice of pie!! All pies (and their individual peices) do not have sufficient mass to measure such things. Even if they did, we do not currently have the technology to make an accurate measurement and therefore could not even make a credible guess!!

Well thanks, Ive always wondered about that:D

Thor: what is the Discworld series?

Gee, Pete, to come to the conclusion that there even IS such a thing as the square root of a piece of pie, you must've gotten an education from the prestigious PBFU (Pete's Bedroom Fake University)

:rolleyes:

Pete is the missing link!

Seriously I hope we don't get a repeat of Tony1 here or worse, KalvinB! These could all be devil's advocate Sciforumsers (trying to keep us on our feet).

I should hope that someone so meticulous in their recreation would spare us some of the more uninteresting aspects of such a personality (bored yet?). I can't think that the last lines would offer any assisteance to the working profile for this reason.

So we have a Jesus/God nut, not as much but bordering on the order of a Sir. Loone.

Voodoo, go here

http://ftp.lspace.org/pub/pratchett/images/bookcovers/the-discworld-mapp.jpg

But that picture is just made up. I'm talking about the <i>actual</i> earth supporting turtle.

ummmmmmmmm

Pete is a hoax of some bored Sciforumers - 95% .....and I can almost guess who errrr, no. pete is me. A real person. U probably wont believe me but i am. Ive just waved at the screen to prove it :D :)

(i am a proper person btw)

After an afternoon of research and breaking in to top-secret files, I have found this: PETE (Personal Extra Talkative Entity) v.1.0.3 is in fact the person to whom we are talking. He has been programmed by those facisnating people at MIT with a grant from the CIA to take a set position on an argument. Being a bot, however, it argues in a rather empty sort of way, often repeating itself. Ekimklaw is actually an alpha release of v.7.0.1, Tiassa is really v.15.0.5, the latest version.

Good luck arguing with bots! You won't get anywhere...

Thats very funny GB-GIL Trans-global. I have a fixed position on things because my thinking on things had not folowed all the way through yet. My belief system is still growing :eek: lol. no but really, it is. So i do not want to listen to some more complex ideas and problems becuase i have not got that far in my thinking yet :rolleyes: :p lol. Anyway. Athiests and other such people refuse to listen to logic and evidence so why should i listen. Both sides refuse to listen (IMHO) because they do not want the other side to destroy their beliefs. :(

Athiests and other such people refuse to listen to logic and evidence so why should i listen. Both sides refuse to listen (IMHO) because they do not want the other side to destroy their beliefs.

It's impossible- atheism is a lack of beliefs



again- atheists are different, I can not speeak for all

It's impossible- atheism is a lack of beliefs No. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. This is still a belief and they will not listen to evidence claiming to prove otherwise any more than a beleiver in God will listen to evidence claiming to prove that God doesnt exist. I think that this is true for both sides. Neither side want any kind of evidence that could possibly damage their beleifs. Anyway. Im sure that for any evidence found, opposing evidence can be shown to either invalidate or question the evidence and so niehter side gets anywhere. This is why i look at a lot of threads and cannot be bothered to post a reply because all it does is create arguments. Plus, i have my beleifs and i cant be bothered going out of my way to try to shake someone elses beleifs. If they want to believe what they want to beleive then thats fine. I have my beleifs, and they have theirs. :) Live and let live. Even if they are wrong. :p lol :D

Originally posted by p_ete2001
No. Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Actually, Atheism is both:
Strong Atheism is the belief that there is no God… simple enough.
Weak Atheism is the lack of belief in God, without the negative assertion.

Weak Atheism is close to Agnosticism which, of course, has it's own variants:

There is strict agnosticism, which is the belief that the question of God's existence is intrinsically unknowable.
There is also empirical agnosticism, which does not believe that the question is unknowable but is simply undecided.. that there is not enough evidence either way to make a decision.

Obviously, the Weak Atheist and Empirical Agnostic are fairly close and confusing. The difference, generally, is that the Empirical Agnostic position is that there is or may be some evidence of God's existence, just not enough to make a judgment while the Weak Atheist does not believe there is any evidence for God but admits to a lack of knowledge that is required for an assertion that God absolutely does not exist.

The most interesting thing is that most people fall into multiple categories depending on the definitions.

This is still a belief and they will not listen to evidence claiming to prove otherwise any more than a beleiver in God will listen to evidence claiming to prove that God doesnt exist. I think that this is true for both sides.
…
Anyway. Im sure that for any evidence found, opposing evidence can be shown to either invalidate or question the evidence and so niehter side gets anywhere.

This is often true. But I believe that it is more accurate to say that Theists and Atheists use differing methods of weighing evidence… What one side perceives as evidence the other side dismisses.

Plus, i have my beleifs and i cant be bothered going out of my way to try to shake someone elses beleifs.

Debate is not only about changing someone else's opinion, it also helps you to examine and strengthen your own.

~Raithere

It's impossible- atheism is a lack of beliefs

Atheism Is iimpossible. Why? Because even if you dont believe in anything, your belief is that you beleive in nothing. So really its an impossibility. Think about it.

Later,
T;)

Atheism Is iimpossible. Why? Because even if you dont believe in anything, your belief is that you beleive in nothing. So really its an impossibility. Think about it.


That is holding a belief about about the status of your belief rather than believing or not believing in God. Active disbelief is a belief but lack of belief is not a belief.