I could say that to Fred because it was actually true . . . perhaps he's read my posts more carefully now, but at the time, it was pretty clear that he hadn't. I don't think he's lazy for a moment, but I do think that, on occassion, he will pick up only on the parts of my posts that he wants to read and respond to them alone, rather than to the whole message.

You, on the other hand, wrote a long post describing how our discussion is essentially useless, for all of our core thoughts are governed by accidents of history, and neither one of us is really capable of changing his mind (what's the point of debating with someone who doesn't already share your belief system, then?). I like to think that I am open to change, even on the most fundamental of my "identity beliefs" . . . I'm not going to switch to deism any time soon, but I'm more than willing accept a fault in, say, natural selection, if someone has reasonably argued that there really is one. Fred has not done that to my satisfaction, hence the continuing discussion.

Even if you're correct about meta-narratives and identity beliefs, we will continue to argue anyway because it's fun.