Magus55

yet 2 billion and counting still believe in it,despite your discouragement. You can't convince us its lies, just like we can't convince you its truth.

winstonjen

A great deal also believe in Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, etc. The bible also says that whoever is not for Jesus is against him, and there are more people that don't believe than those who do, so it seems that your appeal to popularity has no basis in fact.

gilly54

(bold my emphasis)

LOL, and your religion does have plausible backing?

(Oh, no, sorry folks, I've opened the door to more buybull quotes...)

As for the attempt to twist Sagan's quote of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, I think the cyanobacterial fossils are a pretty good place to start, then follow the fossil trail to the early mammals, then early primates, to the early hominids, etc. I consider these actual fossil pieces of evolutionary evidence more plausible than some story book written by uneducated men who thought that all the world's animal species could be contained in a small boat.

Soul Invictus

That may be fine and well, however my implication was more along the lines of that more religious people should acknowledge this, especially with respect to proselytzing without having done due diligence with respect to what they believe.

I solely was responding to the statement he made that I quoted. I sure hope Magus55 believes that statement he/she just made, was my point. I got where he/she was coming from...just acknowledging a quote that was made.

I don't find any problematic issues with the sole piece I quoted.

Soul Invictus

See my reply just above.

Was the rest of the post directed to me?:banghead:

PS - Although I concur with you on the implausibility of Jesus returning, I think that it would be argumentatively best to steer from assertions we cannot prove. I am in alignment with you with respect to this. When you state that you know that we won't see this god, and you can guarantee that he is not coming, you put yourself in an unnecessary quagmire of arguing immaterial points...such as what evidence you've come across that brings the issue to conclusiveness. When you assert your opinions in this fashion, you've assumed a defensive stance, IMO. Also, these assertions turn the discussion into an issue of fact, which can be accepted or denied, but either way, require evidence you don't have. Don't let your emotions get the best of you.