That reasoning is very superficial, and I don't think it can be taken seriously.

Although that could go for nearly all of the comments actually trying to figure out which one is the best move.

I have heard from a GM that you should only play d4 w/ a 2000+ rating

For those who think d4 is boring, PLAY MERAN

1.d4 seems more positional than tactical in its nature. 

1.e4 is vice versa

Due to the kaleidoscopic nature of e4 and the Siclian problem and drawish Russian game I switched to d4.

 For all the problems of the Sicilian, you just have to ask how much you want to face the Kings Indian Defense. And as for the drawish Russian or Petroff's Defense, I have yet to face it in a tournament. Most Black players of 1...e5 are betting on getting a point by wrestling away the momentum, and not struggling for 50 moves to squeak out a draw.

That's ture:)

The most complex response against d4 is Nf6, where Many lines of Queen's gambit could be treated as a special case of this due to transposition.

(It is worthy to note that after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4, 2. ...d5? is incorrect way to transpose it to Slav/QGD. 3. cxd5! give Black a garbrage Marshall Defense. Black needs to play either ...e6 or ...c6 before going back to QG lines)

Personally I just switched to Catalan System against Kings indian and its relatives. In KID games there are quite a lot of case where white has mobile pawn center or central passed pawn(s) where white is pushing it or start king side attack where black is undermining the centre/ blocking the pawns. It is exciting to play. :)

d4 has the slav where white can still get something e4 has the caro cann and french which is a big slap in the face to any e4 player where they cant get anything if played against a well prepared oponnent,

Let's put it this way, when I play e4, I win about 46% of the time, when I play d4, I win around 76% of the time. I like d4.

Edit: 51% with e4, 71% of the time with d4.

d4 produces small, consistent, long lasting advantages for white. In e4 whites advantage is more based around initiative, and there are a lot of ways for black to take the reins. Learning how to win a game by pressuring an opponents weakness and exploiting cramped positions is essential for reaching high levels of chess, and it's something that is much harder to learn in e4 where tactical threats and maneuver are more dynamic. 

I know it's a common idea but why specifically do you think the London/Colle games are boring? Sure, white can chose to play them passively (so you create your own excitement against them and attack), but in general I find they are fast attacking systems. They are generally built for rapid king side piece play and have some of the fastest attacks in chess. 

I am ambidextrous. I play all openings from b4, c4, d4, e4, f4 & g4.

With d4 I play:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
1.d4 Nf6 2.e4 Omega Gambit
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit
1.d4 f5 2.g4 Lisbon Gambit
1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.e4 Diemer-Duhm Gambit
1.d4 g6 2.h4

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

With 1.e4 I play:

1.e4 e5 2.f4  Kings Gambit
1.e4 c5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Sicilian Smith-Morra Gambit
1.e4 c5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bd3 Halasz Gambit Sicilian Variation
1.e4 c5 2.b4 Sicilian Wing 'Gambit
1.e4 c5 2.g4 Sicilian Grob Attack
1.e4 c5 2.f4 Sicilian Gran Prix Attack
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.f4 Halasz Gambit
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4 Mieses Kotroc Gambit
1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 Orthoschnap Khan Gambit
1.e4 c6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Papa Gambit (Caro-Kann Variation)
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 Ulysses Gambit
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3 Mieses Gambit
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 Diemer-Duhm Gambit
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 Persus Gambit (still experimental)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3 Alapin Diemer Gambit
And there are probably more gambit lines that I do play in the King pawn openings.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

1.d4 I dont want to play sicilian as white (I prefer 1.b3 but its not an option so 1.d4 from these 2 is the best)

I would consider myself a 1. d4 type of player (solid, safe, careful, not taking too much risks, ...) - but my game success statistics (in OTB tournament chess) say otherwise - with 1. e4 I have had much more success. Most of my 1. e4 games as White were wins, some draws and few losses - while I have never won a 1. d4 game at all. So I decided to go with the facts instead of some dubious feelings concerning my "style of play" (which I probably don't really have at my level) and play 1. e4 :)

1.d4 for me

1.e4 for everyone else (I like center counter/Scandanavian)

sftac 

Personal preference. It makes little sense to talk of one being "better" than the other in some imaginary absolute sense. They both lead to positions where white maintains his first-move slight advantage, but the game is theoretically drawn with best play.

The only sense in which you can meaningfully talk about which is better is in a context-specific manner - which is better played by this player, against this player, in this tournament, in a fast game, in a slow game, when you need to win, when you only need a draw, etc etc

I used to only play d4 until I reached a certain level of chess development, now I almost always play e4 unless I'm playing the same person more than once they I'll just start with nf3 or something and see where it goes from there.

I think for anyone under 2100ish it doesn't really matter as long as it's positionally sound and acquires tempo.

And if we're confessing about the Sicilian, I like playing against it more than I like playing it. lol

I don't feel that one opening is better than the other simply because it depends on the player's style.  If you like strategic battles that will clash with exciting tactics and endgames then I think you will like playing d4 better.  

If you like open games where it is simply a clash of tactics with some strategic battles then you will like e4.  

It all depends on your style, look over games from both points and find a style that fits you.  Then develop your openings from there.  

Personally, I play d4 exclusively.  

I have always played 1.e4 in tournament games (~30 games, all FIDE rated). However, I distinctly recall that I once played 1.b3 and won after a beautiful combination). I am clearly a tactical type of player with a super-aggresive repertoire, so I don't really like my opponents to transpose into their pet lines when playing against 1.d4! So, that's why I never liked 1.d4 for white. Against 1. d4, let him come into Dutch/King's Indian/Benoni, which I often reach by thoughtful transpositions!

1. e4 is my call. I only transpose to a 1.d4 opening as white if you dare to play Scandinavian (1...e5). Then, I'll take you into my Blackmar-Diemer Gambit with 2.d4 - and I kinda' feel your pain already, buddy!

So, e4! Period.

d4 has a higher win percentage for white because of the sicilian defence when you play e4. Still, I'm a natural e4 player but I've been opening with both to improve my repetoire and not have the same old opening over and over again.