>>I do not do certain things because of my sense of standards amd values, not because of fear for some supposedly highly powerful, but never demonstrated, creature. I am in the position to freely think about arguments people come with and then eventually update my standards and values. From a psychological/developmental perspective you are still in a phase that is normal for children of a certain age: You still believe in ghosts (sorry, one ghost). You've never seen the creature really, but nevertheless you are sure the creature is real. And, to further track down your phase to even younger children: You still fear the creature.
>
>The overall tone of that is pretty condescending, and I can easily see how Bret considers that an attack. Do you believe there is such a thing as "wind?" Do you fear it? I've never "seen" the wind. Yet I am sure it is real. I can see the need to fear it as well. If you don't believe in this wind phenomenon, just take a trip to New Orleans, Louisiana and see that it is for real.

Now, I could feel derogated here. That would be the case if I decided to interpret your words as to imply that you doubt my intellect. But I don't do that. Instead, I'll react with an answer to your question.

Wind exists. We all agree here. I feel and even indirectly see it every day. And it is also scientifically proven that it exists. I also know when to fear the wind. But the wind is not a living entity.
So, what's your real argument? Do you think that I deliberately attacked Bret? Or do you think that I should be less crude? Or do you think that I should not be so arrogant?

I don't want to be crude or arrogant. But first let me search up the definition of 'arrogant': Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

I can't help but immediately think of orthodox religious people when I read that definition.