And again, if the wonders of nature are so much more interesting than rehashed theological doctrines, then why do you find my blog so irresistable?

(Then again, as you say we shouldn’t assume… Maybe you spend 90% of your time on National Geographic?)

And gents, you have this knack of avoiding the issue with assumptions. You are where I’ve been and have moved beyond. Keep this in mind. Your blog title is provocative and invites argument and negative criticism from Atheists. You start with a snarky insult and then whine and condescend when you receive like kind in response.

Personally I find the concept of inanimate matter reacting to the pressures of gravity and thermonuclear reaction to ultimately form life producing planets from the products of their explosions a far more interesting and exciting mystery to study over an archaic rehash of a multitude of creation myths that contradict themselves in their very essence.

In the Beginning was the Mind, and the Mind Creates
And Creation is Mental?

I don’t think I go to eternal damnation tho’, for that, for helping human understanding.

At a higher level, “time” itself can be seen as a phenomenal variation.

He speaks only for a certain shade of atheists. Why is he overly upset with Scott’s insistence about Christianity in particular when it is in islam that carries the problem with its jihad, syariah and curbing of liberty?

No one, Miranda, can prove the existence of any real anthropomorhic God because such a One is a wrong presumption because It is a Concept. Creation is a Product of Mind, we create our own Reality. individually and en masse. This fundamental understanding is well described from both the Buddhist teachings and The Seth of Jane Roberts’ books.

What I think is that it’s awfully self-righteous to compare myself to another commenter on your blog post when you’ve already openly established that you consider Robert’s remarks “antagonistic” and mine “calm and collected”. If I have presented myself as respectful, then it was a successful effort on my part to do so because I find debate much easier and more profitable when respect is offered from both sides of the table, not so that I can be used as a point of comparison.

Robert can express himself in any way he likes, even an offensive one, because I believe adults like you have enough sensibility to separate fact and logic from raw emotion. What I think of Robert’s remarks has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this blog and its comments and in no way affects the arguments being presented, so I will refrain from offering a personal opinion where it is neither necessary nor constructive.

I enjoyed our exchange.

What I was getting at is what you think of Robert’s antagonistic style, as opposed to the calm and collected manner in which you have presented your own remarks.