Why be good?

[Esquilax]

How did I impugn anyone? If I did, it was accidental, because I was very careful in what I wrote and how I phrased my questions. But if you disagree, please quote me verbatim in context so that I may see my error.

"There are no atheists in foxholes," which is a statement you made about me specifically, and then applied it to everyone else, while sticking to that statement, impugns our character in that is asserts we are insincere in our beliefs. You backpedal by calling it an aphorism, a general rule, but that doesn't alter that the content is insulting, nor that you said it, to me, with specific use of pronouns asserting that I would believe in god when I get close to death.

Why do you call me a liar? I've read your posts...you write almost as much as I do...and I wasn't impressed with the response you gave. So, yeah, you responded, but you didn't really refute my point.

Why do I call you a liar? Because when you say that nobody has addressed what you said, while knowing someone addressed what you said, that's a lie. You might not be impressed with what I wrote, but your fiat dismissal means absolutely nothing.

I will say this...and this is not a courtesy that I think many will extend to me...I will go back and re-read your post CAREFULLY a second time. Okay?

Maybe try actually responding to it, eh? Because "nuh uh!" isn't much of a rebuttal, in fact it smells distinctly like a dodge.

<snort>

People throw so much crap at me in these threads that I don't bother to respond to most of them. But if you watch carefully, you will note that from time to time someone like Julia or Jenny or Jorm or somebody will ask a decent question to which I try to provide a courteous thoughtful reply.

And I LIKE being challenged in a serious way because it makes me think my own positions through more carefully. So, one of the reasons I'm in the forum at all is to challenge myself to learn, etc. IOW, I WANT people to respond on a serious, intellectual level. Instead, it's all epithets and ad hominems and the latest filibuster about some thing eating stuff...perhaps the thinking is that if they derail the thread long enough, I'll go away. Silliness, really.

But, yeah, as I said, I didn't see anything of substance the first time, but I will go back and re-evaluate your post. Now, in fact.

Hey, you say you want a serious response, but when I give one that references the scholarly consensus on the gospels, plus probabilities with regard to reality, you dismiss it out of hand, without a second thought, as though "I don't find this convincing" counts for anything. I already know you most likely disagree with what I wrote; the reasons why are what we're here to discuss, and when you won't even post them then it's you who is derailing the thread, not me. I responded to the meat of what you wrote. You responded with "nah," when you bothered to respond at all; lest we forget, your very first response to what we all had wrote was to say that nobody had addressed it. I had, and it turns out that you didn't want to seriously respond.

But somehow, we're the ones not producing anything meaningful.