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

[robvalue]

Right, cos if the bible is meant to be reliable, jesus says you get everything you pray for. One decent argument wouldn't be much to ask.

[Free]

My response was directly to the person who brought up Humprehys position in the first place; Minimalist.

Poisoning the well is something that is done pre-emptively, not after the fact. Since Minimalist brought up, and linked to, the Jesus Never Existed website first, then no accusation of poisoning the well is valid.

So then when you accused me of poisoning the well right after, it was your opinion that you were wrong to do so? Interesting.

No. I didn't poison the well, at least not in regards to the original accuation from Stmbo, which was part of what you quoted.

It is not poisoning the well to observe someone who's skepticism appears to be dishonest, since it is not pre-emptive.

It is not poisoning the well when observations of anti-Christian bias pre-empt my comments regarding it.

It is not poisoning the well when observations of a hatred of religion pre-empt my comments regarding it.

If not a single post was ever made on this forum, and I was the 1st poster ever, and I said what I said about Humphreys before anything else was ever brought up, then THAT is poisoning the well.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

[His_Majesty]

And two things for you, too: One, grow the fuck up. It's not your forum, and we are not your goddamn lackeys; we're here for the forum's benefit, not to cater to your petulant whims. If we don't want you littering the boards with dozens of irrelevant threads on the same topic as your first, then that's something that we get to enforce.

What the hell do you mean "dozens of irrelevant threads"? Every single one is relevant, and if they aren't then why is there so much activity on each one then?

I wanted to discuss the topic in a ORDERLY fashion instead of one giant ass thread that is jam packed with hundreds of pages.

There is only 4 (maybe 5) parts to it, and each part is its own set of work so each sub-topic had its own thread, where each topic could be discussed.

Got damn, is that asking for too much?

We didn't mess with the content of your posts, we didn't negatively affect you in any way, so where exactly do you get off having these passive aggressive tantrums every time you don't get to control absolutely every part of the conversation, front to back?

I felt it was unwarranted, just something to do so you can say you fucked with me.

Secondly, how exactly is putting all of your content in one place for ease of reading "limiting your effectiveness"?

How the hell was the merge for "ease of reading" when you have a jam packed 100+ page full of shit?

[Foxaèr]

How the hell was the merge for "ease of reading" when you have a jam packed 100+ page full of shit?

If you do not like that the content you post is shitty, do something about it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I don't know that guy from Adam's housecat. I came to my atheism using my own faculties of reasoning. This shit about "you athiests" indicates a broad-brush mentality on your part. Perhaps you should be a little more nuanced in your invective.

[Free]

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I don't know that guy from Adam's housecat. I came to my atheism using my own faculties of reasoning. This shit about "you athiests" indicates a broad-brush mentality on your part. Perhaps you should be a little more nuanced in your invective.

You are absolutely correct, and I do apologize. "Some of you atheists" would have been a better word choice.

[robvalue]

When you say "you atheists" I assume you also mean "you Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus..."

Did you forget you're not the only act at the fair?

[Free]

When you say "you atheists" I assume you also mean "you Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus..."

Ummm ... no?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still trying, huh Parkers?

I'm pointing out your ignorance of your own sacred text ... but "trying" is too strong a word, as it implies effort.

Showing your ignorance of your own bible is like shooting fish in a barrel, I could do this shit in my sleep.

[Esquilax]

No. I didn't poison the well, at least not in regards to the original accuation from Stmbo, which was part of what you quoted.

It is not poisoning the well to observe someone who's skepticism appears to be dishonest, since it is not pre-emptive.

It is not poisoning the well when observations of anti-Christian bias pre-empt my comments regarding it.

It is not poisoning the well when observations of a hatred of religion pre-empt my comments regarding it.

So, essentially it's not poisoning the well if you're right, which we've already established you could not possibly be as you don't know the people you're accusing of bias.

Listen: when you imply that everyone who disagrees with you is just hateful and biased, and that the only intellectually honest position is yours, then you are poisoning the well for everyone who comes after you, in the ongoing discussion you were having. Not only that, it also taints the views of anyone coming into the discussion later: to be clear, my issue was that instead of responding with content, you opted to just proclaim anyone who didn't take your position bigoted liars. Not only is it poisoning the well, as I've explained twice now, it's also just dishonest, ineffective argumentation.