Dan,

<<Is anyone else reading this? I know George is because has given a link recommending others towards this discussion. His point I think was to show an example of the futility of trying to reason with a certain person.>>

Yes, and if you read George’s post, it’s not hard to see that he linked to this thread for the same reason you decided you’d pop-in: to slag-off at me.

But as always you are to cowardly and rude to address me directly.

I have (mostly) good memories of Christians from my church-going days. In my desperation to cling to my faith towards the end there, I can remember (fallaciously) thinking to myself, “How could all these people possibly be wrong if they’re so nice?!”

But OLO has shown a different side. I am particularly surprised by just how vicious some Christians can become when they are held to account for untruthful claims (remember that?) or have an error in their logic pointed out repeatedly because they continue to make the same mistake.

Sure, having the flaws in the reasoning one uses to justify beliefs that we have invested so much in emotionally can understandably be upsetting, but there’s two ways we can respond to that.

That being said, mjpb at least deserves some credit here for remaining relatively civil in all this.

I’m starting to feel like I’m back at school now.

First, during the lunch break, mjpb runs to where some of his friends might be playing so that he could round some of them up for support:

“The thread is an old one that many would have forgotten as it has dragged on very slowly in recent months. Thus I'd like to make it more visible via this post.” - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263&page=0#108188

Evidently no-one seemed interested.

Frustrated about a different situation, George raises this episode - putting a slightly different twist on the situation - in order to rationalize why he doesn’t want to continue and help support all sorts of derogatory insinuations:

“I do not see any point in participating again in this ping-pong (the way e.g. mjpb did recently in the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814, before he apparently learned his lesson in the futility of such exercise).” - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11631#198940

Disgruntled by a series of numerous defeats, Dan then spots the opportunity to gang-up on me in amidst all the ruckus and starts throwing stones from afar only to run when confronted.

Here’s an illustration of how some of you appear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI09MPC1mIc

Particularly in the last half of the clip.

I too was amused to see Dan S de Merengue surface here, A J Philips.

>>Disgruntled by a series of numerous defeats, Dan then spots the opportunity to gang-up on me in amidst all the ruckus<<

Even more amusing was his unusual honesty, when he declared:

>>I haven't gone back to read all of the dozens of pages to see what you've been discussing<<

Not that the lack of homework prevents him from offering:

>>However, one thing I've noticed about some of the atheists on this website...<<

A fine contribution, all things considered, and well up to his usual standard.

Rest assured that you are not alone in this. It is clear however that you need no assistance in dismantling mjbp's attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

Have fun.

mjbp,
This only goes to show how 'a series of numerous' people (and their arsenal of pleonasms) might be reading when you don't realise it.

Pericles,

Thanks for your supportive comments (and Squeers for that matter). Coming from someone whose logic I find impeccable, they’re much appreciated in moments like these were I really start to feel the heat.

Not that I should complain or be surprised by the emotive resistance I often come up against given the fact that I use arguments (and deliver them in a way) that I believe could have made a difference for me once upon a time.

I’m sure I would have, at least initially, reacted the same way.

Dan,

I’m sorry my English skill are so ordinary. But as someone who thinks that an even spread of stars in the sky is evidence that the Earth is at the centre of the universe, you’re hardly in a position to criticise me.

Speaking of pleonasms and tautological redundancies though, I think, for all intents and purposes, we need a new beginning for a fresh start. You certainly are a unique individual and I’m sure we’d share some of the same mutual interests in other areas that we could find as a common bond.

The fact that you are now able to acknowledge my existence in spoken dialogue with others is a positive improvement.

My only concern though, would be that we may just end up re-iterating past experiences again.

On second thoughts, forget I said anything. All things considered, it would probably just be like déjà vu all over again anyway.

Thanks, AJ, if there may have been some compliment or concession in there somewhere.

I'm always up for any type of discussion which promotes understanding between disparate views. And I think this website aims to encourage this.

However, any meaningful discussion starts with a belief that the other has the right to speak on the forum, and involves certain levels of courtesy and respect. worthy of an informed colleague who dialogues in good faith.

I have and will seek to express, explain, and defend my views and beliefs with reason and conviction. I don't care for having my personal integrity attacked simply for arriving at that place where the viewpoints differ. For that is the moment when constructive discussion ends.