MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

What would be more intellectually honest is you admitting that I had not poisoned the well when Stimbo said I did right HERE, in which he took a partial quote of me HERE, and which you responded to right HERE, in which you replied with "Hey look, turns out he needed a whole lot more well poison!"

Since I hadn't poisoned the well at the beginning of that conversation with Stimbo, where do you come off by lying that I am adding "more?"

How the fuck do you add "more" to nothing?

Now, let's see a little intellectual honesty from an atheist for a change, okay? Maybe then i will start trusting things you say, but until then, I simply don't.

And there we go again: someone dares to disagree with you, and so you seek to passive aggressively tarnish them and, yes, poison the well for future readers by proclaiming their disagreement is intellectually dishonest, apropos of nothing.

Although to some degree you're right; Stimbo mislabelled the original fallacy you used. "X is laughed at by Y community, therefore is wrong," is actually an unsupported argument from authority, made without a shred of evidence... possibly well poisoning in the sense that you're seeking to taint any further argument made with reference to the source in question by fiat, before it's even presented, but I don't care enough to quibble over details, especially since that seems to be your main method of argument.

But the parts I pointed out were still pure well-poison. If you want to desperately cling to the word "more" as some kind of out, then whatever, I don't need it there. My point stands well without it; the sentence was formulated that way as a sarcastic continuation of what Stimbo was saying, but it works as a stand alone position. If trading one fallacy for another, while not affecting my point at all, would make you happy, then feel free to say I was wrong, and I'll even rephrase my initial post right here:

"Looks like he needed a whole lot of well poison to wash down that argument from authority! "

Yay for you! You won a single insignificant point, while utterly failing to address your actual fallacies, plus the equivocations you chose to defend them with!

Edit: Oh, not to mention the abrupt right turn you made there, that non-sequitur "oh yeah, well, you were wrong to support Stimbo!" dodge you made when you couldn't handle the original conversation we were having, let's not forget that!