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
"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
Did you watch the Baseball playoffs this year??? Obviously to Boston and Chicago, the supernatural DOES exist
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."