People have opinions.

Some people think the sky is blue. Technically, its not. A "green shirt" isn't really green - it merely reflects that amplitude in the light spectrum to our eyes. It is all a matter of perspective.

None of us will know the ultimate "TRUTH" until we die in this plane. If some people are right and there is no God , then it really won't matter. On the other hand, if those of Faith are right, it will. I choose my side, you choose yours. It's all good - because we don't have to agree. I choose Faith. Many others will. Many more won't. Their choice.

Nothing worth arguing about when you look at it from that light.

Since Neon is one of the forum moderators, if he was going to lock it I assume he would have done so when he posted.

And yet you're still arguing about it.

Uhm - Steve... where in my post did I make any argument? Nowhere did I say that "my view is right because of A,B,C and any other view is wrong because of X,Y,Z".

C'mon now....

:dead:

"People have no opinions. It is just a dance of electrons and neurotransmitters, performing patterns and sequences that only show that they do it this way, and not in any other way. It is all a matter of perspective."

What you say, in my book ranks as total nihilism. According to Camus, nihilism does not mean to believe in nothing, but not to believe in what is.

People wonder when this thread will get locked? Maybe this quote can accelerate things a bit:


"The argument for religious faith would be an insult to an ape, let alone a human being. So why is religion popular? Because it's easy to explain to idiots. Magic always is."

Pat Condell

Skybird - you cannot DISPROVE that a Supreme Diety exists. I can not (to your satisfaction) prove one does. By extension, no person of Faith can prove the existence of God to another person, nor can any atheist disprove the existence of God. Thus, it becomes a matter of personal opinion based on experience and the choice of what to believe.

Nothing nihilistic about that.

I will say that I doubt insults will get the thread locked, but may very well get you an infraction.....

Well, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to assume there is a supreme being, but it is also foolish to claim that there can not be one.

Like the Tyrannosaurus Rex, let this thing rest in peace.

Then why jump back in at all. Technically you only stated your opinion on faith. Yet this thread was never about faith; it was about a person saying that he believed that paleontology could be reconciled with creationism by explaining how people within the biblical context could have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. You never addressed that particular point, and have more than once tried to turn it into an argument about the existence of God, therefore only a matter of opinion. That itself is indeed an argument.

None of us would stand by and watch a dog suffer, but we somehow keep this thread alive.....:hmmm:
:D

Agreed...getting a bit worn now.

I dunno - why did you? Or am I wrong for doing so but your not?

He believes something. He can't prove it. Thus he has faith... And as for never addressing his idea regarding humans hunting T-rex, sure I did - see post #85 where I called him a moron.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&postcount=85

Prior to that my posts were pointedly about how mocking those of Faith because they choose to believe does not follow the guidelines of Subsim.

I reread every post I made in here. Know when I talked about the existence of God in any way? It was in answering questions - and it happened 2x in this thread. Both times my post was in response to a question posed by someone else. In fact, the first time I did so was in response to YOU, Steve. So who was making it about the topic? You who asked, or me for answering?

If you ask a question about creationism, I am not somehow forcing a discussion on the existence of God when I answer, since creationism relies on the existence of God. If you don't want to go into a subject, don't ask about it. Don't scream foul when your answered.

If you can locate any other example in this thread where I tried to "argue the existence of God" then show me. Otherwise, you accuse me wrongly.

My point in returning to this thread initially is the same as it was at first - everyone is entitled to their opinion - and there is no reason to argue (or insult) others who differ with you.

I stayed out of the thread for two weeks, only coming back in to criticize someone for reviving it just to point out it had been revived. I then let it lie for another two weeks, only coming back in to criticize someone for reviving it to "prove" a point that was done more than a month earlier. Since then I've tried to stop people from repeating the same arguments over and over. Now it Neon Samurai wanted, as he said, to clarify and defend the arguments he made before, that might be different only because he was on an extended trip and unable to contribute. But he chose not to. That certainly says something.

Yes you did. I apologize. As for people mocking him, it's not because of his faith but because of his trying to prove it, and the way he did so.

We try to stay on top of it. On the other hand what either one of us may think about guidelines, only posts that actually break the rules are dealt with in a strict manner. Also, it doesn't seem that a lot of the people you think are attacking Christians are actually doing so. Some, sure, but a lot of the "attacks" look to me like people saying what they think, whether I agree or not. There's nothing wrong with that kind of debate. As I said earlier in the thread, just blindly calling a group idiots doesn't do anything for anybody. On the other hand, expressing an opinion that Christians (or anyone else) seem to willing avoid any evidence that contradicts them is a matter of personal opinion and does not constitute an attack.

Forgive me if I confused you with someone else, but more than once people have tried to divert the discussion and others like it with a comment that it all comes down to faith. "You believe this, and I believe that." This is emphatically true when talking about God, but it is just as emphatically not true when talking about science. Creationism vs Evolution is a matter of science, and bringing faith into it actually twists the discussion in ways that destroy it rather than define it. This is also true for people arguing for Evolution who stop talking about Creationism and start talking about believers. Not all Christians are Creationists, and not all Creationists are Christians. Mixing the two discussions detracts from both, no matter who does the mixing.

True, but simply saying it's a matter of belief is not an answer, it's a diversion.

You may well be right. It's easy to confuse what others have said and what you have said in other situations. My point was simply to try to keep the thread from growing again. If it does start up again, fine, but it would be nice if it was a real debate, not just people trying to get the last word in.

Fair enough. I just felt that it didn't need to be said again. If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.

Then I think we can both consider it water under the bridge, my friend. :)