Problem is Joe, both "sides" see the issues from their perspective.

The idea that something is or isn't cannot be worked out by debate as I doubt pete will ssy that he is no longer a creationist as a result of these threads and I am no nearer my God either.

You are then left with either earnest views put forward which fall on deaf ears or abuse which has about the same effect.   I for one cannot see how middle ground can be reached because whilst always accepting and appreciating how much some people's religion means to them personally, the idea that it is more than that nor indeed should be more than that frankly isn't an idea that grabs me.

The problem with a rose such as yourself is the pricks hiding behind your petals. Similarly, by pointing out lack of religion, I and others are lumped by association with those who make a living out of questioning the role of faith beyond the personal. I am apparently a follower of Dawkins. I hope the after service tea is better than our local church. .. (I may not attend service but being married to a bell ringer, we are in the building most weeks.)

Sorry but mutual abuse is the inevitable end game. Also, cultural differences occur as here in the UK such banter is a normal method of friendly debate whereas most American posters seem to be more serious and analyse the wording of posts far more.

Separated by a common language. Separated by an uncommon God.

You tell me.