666...the Devils Moving Average

There are several ways for a well to be poisoned.

1. By some one asserting that your positions are coming from so biased a perspective that they shouldn't be believed.

2. By someone displaying such a biased position, and consistently doing so, that they are demonstrating that they shouldn't be believed.

No. 2 is what I am referring to. Lots of people poison their own wells actually and figuratively.
 
Poisoning the well occurs when your opponent asserts
that YOU shouldn't be believed because of some reason
unassociated with the argument you are making.

If you are asserting that I shouldn't be believed because
I am biased, then you are in fact poisoning the well.

If you are asserting that I am displaying such a strong
bias consistently, and therefore demonstrating that
I should not be believed, then you are STILL poisoning the well.

Let's assume that I am completely and utterly, incredibly biased.
The fact of the matter is that no matter HOW biased I am,
that alone IN NO WAY discredits my argument.

You must still attack my argument on its merits alone, and
not the person putting forth the argument.

Even a pathological liar occasionally tells the truth. This is why
the focus must be on the argument and not the person.

Claims of bias are worthless in a debate.


So where does this leave us?

We have the theists asserting intelligent design.

I pointed out 2 (of many) examples which clearly show
something idiotic in design which does not gel with
the concept of a supremely intelligent designer.

The burden of proof is on you to explain why these
obvious flaws are in fact not flaws at all.

You must also explain how the obvious fixes a mere human engineer
could think of are somehow "not as good" as the original "design"


peace

axeman





Quote from Doubter:

There are several ways for a well to be poisoned.

1. By some one asserting that your positions are coming from so biased a perspective that they shouldn't be believed.

2. By someone displaying such a biased position, and consistently doing so, that they are demonstrating that they shouldn't be believed.

No. 2 is what I am referring to. Lots of people poison their own wells actually and figuratively.
More...
 
"And here is what I predict the next strategy is: you will cuss and swear and rail against God and then say, "See God didn't strike me dead!?"

This has been your typical "proof" that the supernatural does not exist. "


False. That is not my proof.

I need not prove that the supernatural exists.
I do not assert that it doesnt exist.

Again.... your misapplying the burden of proof here.


I simply do not believe, because of lack of proof. End of story.

Do you believe in 3 headed unicorns? No? Why not?
Because there is no evidence.

I don't believe in the supernatural, for the same reason
you dont believe in 3 headed unicorns.

If you assert the supernatural exists, you need to provide
some hard core evidence.


peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:

"


If you assert the supernatural exists, you need to provide
some hard core evidence.


peace

axeman
More...


Did you watch the Baseball playoffs this year??? Obviously to Boston and Chicago, the supernatural DOES exist:D
 
Quote from axeman:

Your asking me to prove a negative.

Can you prove im not god? NO.
Can you prove the earth DIDNT shoot out my butt last year? NO.

Do you even understand why asking someone to prove
a negative is so meaningless?

This is a typical theist reply.
They fail to understand where the burden of proof lies.

I can come up with an unlimited number of questions
in the form of:

Can you prove that [ so and so ] DOESNT eixist?
The answer is always NO.

What does it mean? What weight does it carry?
Answer: Zippo, nada, worthless question.


"You then dismiss all references to the supernatural as authoritative as if you had exhaustively dealt with the subject."

Wrong again. I dismiss it because of a complete lack of evidence.


"Yet you insistt that we should just take your word for it"
I do no such thing.


"The truth is you don’t know and will not admit it. "

False again.
I ask you again. Can you prove the earth didnt shoot outta
my butt yesterday? NO.

Do you ADMIT that you dont know?? :D
You have to, if your honest.

I readily admit that I cannot prove a negative, BECAUSE
proving a negative is simply impossible and meaningless.
(Caveat: Outside of formal math, etc )


Proving a negative typically requires an exhaustive search
of the enitre universe and switches the burden of proof
from the person who asserted it, to ME.

If you assert. You must back it up.
You cannot dodge the burden of proof by asking someone to
prove something is NOT true.
More...

Let's take the case of Marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy (knighted in 1985). He began his life just like you: opposed to the supernatural. However, as he studied it for years, he completely changed his views and began to realize that the "paranormal" really did he exist.

This guy is a complete non-Chrisitian who started out just like you.

Do you think for a minute that this caliber of individual could be deceived by simple "brain stimulation" and "psycologically-explained" situations?

Now why am I supposed to beleve you as opposed to one of the foremost biologist in Britain's history? Was your two years of research supposed to make me believe that you're an expert on the subject?

Of course not! You obviously do not know enough to assert that it does not exist anywhere on the globe or in history.
 
But I keep forgetting again that the thirty or so genius-level scholars that I have mentioned are all self-deceived. I need to just keep saying to myself, "It's only the materialists that are right. It's only the materialists that are right They are experts on all subjects, especially the supernatural. Everyone else is wrong. They are right. They are right..."

And then I can repeat, "I am a myth believing fool. I like unicorns. Hoyle is a fool. Hardy is a fool. Davies is a fool. We are self-deceived. Only Axe can be right."
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



Let's take the case of Marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy (knighted in 1985). He began his life just like you: opposed to the supernatural. However, as he studied it for years, he completely changed his views and began to realize that the "paranormal" really did he exist.

This guy is a complete non-Chrisitian who started out just like you.

Do you think for a minute that this caliber of individual could be deceived by simple "brain stimulation" and "psycologically-explained" situations?

Now why am I supposed to beleve you as opposed to one of the foremost biologist in Britain's history? Was your two years of research supposed to make me believe that you're an expert on the subject?

Of course not! You obviously do not know enough to assert that it does not exist anywhere on the globe or in history.
More...

I do sense a complete and utter vacuum in the space between your auricles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top