Why be good?

[Jackalope]

Randy, you equivocate as if the strength of the two claims are equal.  They are not.

First, let me say that I appreciate your decision to respond to my argument rather than simply curse at me.

One is a mundane claim, the other is not.  Nonetheless, I would not expect you to accept that claim on the basis of my word alone.

I did accept your claim based upon the very human reason that we normally accept people at their word unless we have reason to doubt them. I have no reason to doubt your experiences; so, I accept that you have been honest.

However, if you cared as much about truth as you apparently do about scoring cheap rhetorical points, you could:

* Speak to people who were there, all of which (to my knowledge) are still alive.
* Speak to the attending physician.
* Speak to the E.R. physician who intubated me.
* Speak to the anesthesiologist who put me into an induced coma.
* Speak to the multitude of nurses and technicians who cared for me.

Yep, all of that's just testimony, but it's first person testimony.  But wait, there's more!

* You could examine the medical records
* You could examine the insurance records
* ...and the billing records
* ...and the canceled checks that paid for the service.

All of this would tell a coherent and mundane story, all within the realm of ordinary human experience, backed by documentation written by people who were actually there, who's identities are known, and who may be questioned about it.

I agree. If I were to investigate matter very carefully, I could write a full account of what I learned.

So did Luke.

I'm sorry, who?  You mean the pseudographical writer who wrote "Luke's" gospel?

Rhetorical question.  I really don't want you to answer.

In any case, the cheap rhetorical point you're so desperately trying to make is wholly irrelevant in my case, because I'm completely uninterested in yours, or anyone else's analysis as to the veracity of the gospels, because, quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whether they're true or not. 

So, if it were undeniably demonstrated that the gospels are true, you wouldn't care?

Why not?

Because I refuse to worship evil and call it good, that's why.  The reason I am no longer a Christian has nothing to do with the veracity of that foul book you worship.  It has to do with the contents of it, and the nature of what you and your ilk deem to be "salvation".

I've already told you on at least two occasions I'm completely uninterested in having this particular discussion.  Why do you disrespect me by trying to drag me into it nonetheless?

Not at all.  It's pretty damned obvious he's here to serve his own agenda, and nothing more.  He's apparently not interested in listening or comprehending where we're actually coming from and the positions we actually hold.

My agenda? Well, duh. I'm a Christian posting in an atheist forum. What do you think my agenda is? To exchange cookie recipes? 

I am listening and responding to the best of the posts (I have to keep my waders on, though).

For example, only after a half dozen or so epithet-laced personal attacks did you finally decide to write a coherent response to me that I could respond to.

Why not be calm and reasonable in your discussions from the get-go?

Because you argue in bad faith and you lie.  I have nothing but contempt for the kind of intellectual dishonesty you display.

I told you to go fuck yourself and that you were a lying bucket of shit, because... wait for it... you misrepresented the position of three of us, despite our positions being uncomplicated and buried within all of about a dozen words each.  I don't buy your apology for a second.  Your misrepresentations and strawmen have been *legion* since you started posting here.

If it makes you feel any better, the sentiment is still there - particularly because you seem intent on dragging me into a discussion that I have no interest in having.  You're a liar and an ass, Randy.  I have no use for you, and nothing but contempt.