A generic insult. Uncalled-for, empty and unhelpful. I can only speak for myself on this, not for anybody else who might fall into your generic "some folks" group. I am proud that I have acted with more integrity and honesty in my dealings with Jan Ardena than he has with me. If that makes me morally superior to him, so be it; readers can form their own judgments. The "abuse" of Jan that you allege comes, as usual, with no actual examples. It is also a nasty assumption on your part that I, or other "folks" you might be referring to, would enjoy abusing Jan, or anybody else. The fact of the matter here is that Jan has chosen to present himself as a provocateur. His behaviour has been troll-like and dishonest at various times. He has been consistently evasive in most of his time here, not to mention dogmatic, pedantic and annoyingly and needlessly repetitive. I and some other members have engaged with Jan robustly. Speaking personally, I have tried to expose Jan's tactics, along with the flaws in the few arguments he has put in support of his personal brand of theism. I should point out that, by and large, it doesn't matter that my discussions with Jan have been about religion. For him, the question of theism vs atheism is like a personal crusade. Just look at the way he constantly stereotypes and misrepresents atheists, as if atheism itself is a monolith. For me, the game has always been about trying to break Jan out of his complacency, to get him to think critically about his own belief system. The thing is, I'm no longer convinced that Jan's heart is in it - if it ever was. These days, what passes for discussion from Jan seems to be mostly about reciting repetitive mantras to comfort himself. That's when he isn't simply acting like a troll. I have often said that I do not necessarily expect to "convert" any opponent I have in a debate here to my side of the fence. My posts are not there just for their consumption. People on this forum who are wrong more often double down on the wrong, rather than ever admitting they are wrong. The chances of anybody publically changing their position here probably decreases the longer a particular debate goes on. With that in mind, it would be pointless to go into any debate with the hope of converting one's opponent. The point of engaging in those debates - apart from the fun of it (because, ultimately, none of us would be here if we didn't enjoy something about the forum) - is to put one's own perspectives out there, in the hope that one might persuade some other people to think differently. That's always been your position. It is not one that is universally shared. It is that, but it's not exclusively that. It never has been. It's kind of ironic you mention this, given that "fact checking" is just the sort of thing that one might expect would happen on a "science forum". It seems to me - and I think we're in agreement on this - that some people don't like having their "facts" checked too assiduously. They get all upset and uptight when people start requesting facts to go along with opinions and beliefs. It sounds like you have another vague accusation being the curtains, waiting to jump out. That's another entertaining story, albeit another one that is bereft of any handles we can grab on to. Got any specific examples for this one? Strange that you're addressing this to Jan, who has a long history of attempting to redefine words to suit himself. What makes you think he'll have the foggiest idea of what your complaint is about? There's a can of worms. We could discuss it in a different thread, if you like. Got any examples of that, by chance? It seems to me that if the theist wants to make the positive claim that his particular version of God exists, it is up to him to define and establish what he is claiming. There's little point in an atheist putting up a straw man. Knocking that down won't do anything to shake the theist's belief in his different version of God. But you're talking to Jan here - the man who epitomises the small target and the shifting definitions. Jan's afraid to commit to anything that would peg his God down to specifics that might be testable. Tell us what atheists ought to be obliged to know about religion, Tiassa. Is this something you know? Are you willing to share? Obviously, Tiassa, you're operating with a clue about the discussions I've had with Jan. Perhaps you should try reading one or two of them through. Oh, but maybe you're not thinking of me, but some other atheist? If so, my mistake.