So, me talking about my perspective is superiority, but you bluntly stating yours isn't?

So far, you've told us you're a "big man" who gets banned from biker forums for being too violent. A big Texan. "Down South here", whatever that means. So where exactly do we see an attitude of superiority coming from?

You still don't see the hypocrisy.

I am not a hypocrite. I am a member who is up front and descriptive.
Down to name calling now I guess. I guess I am ruffling feathers again.

Thanks. It's interesting to see the variety of explanations for the labels.

You're not ruffling my feathers at all.

Pointing out hypocricy is not "name calling". However, you entered this conversation with derision and overt "laughing", followed by name calling. So, once again, I am only pointing out the continuous hypocricy here.

Well, from my perspective. I said cockroaches and dogs have souls.

Then you went all hinky dinky on me. Squish me. Yada yada yada.

I was not even addressing you. But folks like you in general.
You proved my point in spades and then some.

Also thinks fear and shame are necessary teachers, :confused: though most who believe in hell must! :scratch: :doh:

You're welcome Jim.

419 pages of beautiful debate.
Now in the 420th the arguments are shooting ad hominim.

I hope the bright boys can get the train back on to the railway.
I mean... the exchange of idea in this thread is really informative.

Good luck.

Ad hominim is the only way some people can argue. ;)

Besides, it's an appropriate response, at times, since the subject matter often calls motives into question and draws hostility.

The conundrum is that hostility nearly always reduces to hypocricy but, when pointed out, just generates more hostility. A hostile mind can't be rational at the same time.

Thomas Paine said it well: "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture." :study:

I have evolved my own position:

I realized myself that I would not consider it the slightest contradiction to my assumed existance of a God if science found out, that the first self-reproducable marginal pre-form of life developed chaotically and physically in some RNA reactor, a theory roughly stated earlier in thread.

I must admit the thought is highly speculative, to a large degree completely irrelevant and the statement, of course, inevitably offensive to many parties.

I was wondering, can you prove existence of zero in Mathematics?

Nobody here has claimed existance of the zero in mathematics.

Yes true, but up to what level one can evolve in mathematics without the existence of zero, same for infinity etc.. If in mathematics or physic science it's ok to progress in knowledge using concepts with unprovable existence, I don't see myself blame someone one for faith in God or whatever, although I'm not religious one myself

I agree. I find it also hard to believe that there should be someone who should state it be impossible that a god existed. Because it is widely obvious that we don't know everything.

The other way round too, as some kind of believer in existance of God I still know I can be surprised about the existance of God. Maybe he is different than I think.