This is why I don't like debating religion

[happydolphin]

Runa216 said:

happydolphin said:
You know what, you guys turned this into a fight since the very beginning, and rather than arguing my points you got personal. You guys first.

This should help explain to a lot of people why debating religion is so difficult, because people haven't learnt not to make it personal or make personal attacks.

I'm very sorry but it's the truth and as much as it hurts it needs to be said. It's really frustrating when you actually want to find answers and help others find answers that you're constantly at a stand-still due to hostile dispositions. To be very frank now.

You need to understand the difference between 'making it personal' and simply acknowledging a fight is unwinnable.  You also need to understand that nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.  this is an internet forum about games, not congress.  your ability to convince someone of something does not matter.  You, like myself, dsgrue3, and anyone else in here arguing evolutionary biology (which, by the way, is completely off topic) are wasting your time.  

Walking away when you see this doesn't mean you're less of a man.  It doesn't mean you lose the debate.  It doesn't mean the world is going to end or that 'the world just won't understand your brilliance'.  facts are facts.  I've not read every post by every poster in this thread, but what I have read thus far has been incredibly one sided when it comes to who is and who is not using facts, evidence, or proof to back their claims.  you can whine all you want and try to discredit what others say, but facts are facts.  When someone just won't accept facts, you don't keep arguing with them, you move on and stop wasting your time trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole.  There comes a time when the only way to force something in something that doesn't want it is intellectual rape, and is accompanied by violence.  

I'm in awe of this person I'm reading, but I'm aware it's the part of Runa I like.

Then comes this, it is completely ugly and biased.

So you want to ignore evolution.  So you want to discredit science or support religion becuase you're not convinced of the evidence in support of established biological fact.  good for you, neither I nor dsgrue3 are in charge of enlightening you, but don't get offended when we dismiss you as the devoutly faithful zealout you are.  that's not making it personal, that's a fair and well reasoned conclusion based on dozens of arguments back and forth wherein you were unable to combat ANY of dsgrue3's  points.  

Whether I ignore evolution or not has little to do with the points I've made in this thread, I have no idea what kind of twisted intent requires you make this a black and white thing when I was clearly challenging the status quo with basic and honest concerns to the theory.

Other people in history have challenged the status quo, and they ended up being vindicated. You know when the whole Gallileo thing goes upside down. This is it, this is where those who profess to be scientifically minded treat those who disagree with their theory as being "devoutly zealous".

I am not a faithful zealot, I do not even practice my faith just so you know. Yet that has little to do with the actual matter at hand, that you are a religious intolerant, that is the matter at hand. I say that because rather than arguing my points, you make this once again a personal attack at me due to my religious background and use that against me when I am arguing points.

If it were reasonable, what then of the rebuttal of his observance precludes existence. Did you forget that one now?

Shame on me for thinking you're reasonable? Make me think not, because you seem like an actually ok guy. What is that thing that is making you so biased against the _points_ I bring to the table really defeats me.

Do you also think observation precludes existence, after I destroyed that using proof by contradiction?

Philosophy is great, but using philosophical ideas to support your misguided views on biology is not something that anyone outside of a philisopical class respects in a debate.  Just like he can't force the square peg that is evolutionary biology in your circular hole, don't expect to get away with using your philisophical hammer to force your circular peg in his square hole. 

I love analogies. 

You couldn't have been reading my replies to him because I was clearly debating with him on a scientific level, giving scientific concerns as to why I have difficulty with the process of speciation, and I've made that clear. If you want to go ahead and lie and say I've been speaking on philosophical terms, that's your choice. But it isn't true and I'd be sad to think that people don't see through it.