SotS,
Alan has been very patient for a long time in giving plenty of examples, to which you always respond with why what he has suggested is wrong. It's one reason why I keep on accusing you of doing the equivalent of asking him to swim from A to B, but say that he cannot use breast-stroke, backstroke, etc.
No Alan hasn’t for the reasons I’ve explained (what he actually does is attempt very bad arguments, then ignore the rebuttals when they’re given to him and resort instead to assertions of personal faith), and I just knocked your swimming stroke analogy out of the park. Typically though you’ve just ignored that and carried on as if it hadn’t happened.
Why do you do that, and what does it say about you do you think?
I want to introduce you to classical music and suggest that you listen to Rossini's William Tell overture. You then complain about why I chose that piece of music and not one of Rossini's other overtures, or any of his other music, or music from another composer.
Your really don’t understand this analogy thing do you. Alan makes
claims of objective fact about the world (“God” etc). Liking or not Rossini is about aesthetics, opinion, taste – a fundamentally different category of experience.
Nothing is stopping you from making your own mind up.
Actually something is – reason. Why on earth would I decide that some very bad arguments followed by assertions of personal faith would persuade me to agree with him (or you)?
So, you made some stupid observations about the description I gave of AB’s
modus operandi and I explained to you why they were stupid. As is you way you’ve just ignored that and carried on as if nothing had happened. Why? Why not finally at least attempt to engage with the arguments than undo you rather than stick with your hit and run tactic of posting nonsense and then disappearing?