Hoofdzakelijk Arbitrair ARTICLE DESTROYED

I recently came across the following rebuttal where someone attempted to refute THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT. A link to the original page can be seen here... http://hoofdzakelijkarbitrair.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/rebutting-the-elliot-argument-religion-and-me/

The article was so poor that I wasn't even going to respond to it, but I had some down time tonight and thought what the heck. The following is my refutation to his rebuttal, and as usual, we will respond to his work line for line, word for word.  All of his posts can be seen in //Black// my replies will be followed in BLUE.    

-God bless-

For those of you who are unfamiliar with TEA (The Elliott Argument)....Please click the following link...http://theatheistkilla.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-elliott-argument-official.html
______________________________________________________________________________

//This blogpost is part of a series of three posts that contain a complete rebuttal of the Elliot argument, a refutation of the existence of any Deity, and rebukes all religion including its followers.//

We will be responding what he calls a complete rebuttal of The Elliott Argument.

//For centuries theists have tried to prove the existence of god by means of raw logical argumentation, while others have used those same means without an a priori conclusion, therefore ending up on the other end of what we could call the ‘god – No god scale’. Theists have used their age old tactic, and merciless punishment, of silencing those people with the threat of death (Galile├») during a majority of these centuries. They have done this because in their mind god is logical and true by definition, which in turn makes any counterargument false by definition. According to them falsehood is the work of the devil, so great thinkers have been labeled as Heathens who deserved death to please the king and purify his ‘kingdom of love’. This king would be jesus of course. Even when Science and Philosophy has progressed as far as it has in 2013, with its miraculous findings, wonderful Theories and magnificent Truths, deep inside creationists (as modern theists call themselves these days) still feel the way their spiritual forefathers did for centuries about ‘Heathens’. So instead of killing Atheists off, which is illegal in contemporary times (thanks to ‘Protohumanist’ Thinkers), they use childish intellectual attacks and pseudo-philosophical arguments to sneer at us instead. As they did centuries ago, they still try to hijack the train that represents the way of thinking that has developed itself since the Renaissance, and believe they can use this train to destroy the train itself. All the while forgetting that by hopping on the train that railroads only direction is forward, and they themselves have joined the incredible journey through the landscape of science, only hindered from seeing the landscape by intentionally closing their eyes. We as passengers can prevent those from grabbing the steering weel and halting the vehicle, and we should. Yes, they are trying to steal our weapon of rationalism, and although they can’t reverse the journey that has already come to pass, they try to hijack and halt the train with closed eyes and use it for their own goals. I can hear you thinking: “That’s pathetic”. And sadly, you are completely right. It is pathetic.//


Nothing at all to do with The Elliott Argument, its conclusion, structure, or any of it's premises. Moving right along.




//Most people know about Anselm’s ontoligical argument, which is actually quite fun to try to wrap your head around. These days, as I stated before, the arguments are mean spirited and use means that can be used to question their own (real) arguments, to create arguments that are false and ad hominem.//

Nothing at all to do with The Elliott Argument, its conclusion, structure, or any of it's premises. Moving right along.




//One of these (not so ‘onto’)logical arguments is the ‘Elliot argument’, a pseudo-philosophical argument by an obnoxious, loudmouthed devout christian called ‘Elliot’ aka “TheAtheistKilla”. By spamming half of the internet in ALL CAPS he actually managed to get some recognition by fellow creationists who lack the intellectual capacity to see its very simple fallacies. (About that last statement I wish to quote Richard Dawkins: “that was not an ad hominem that was an ad bullshitism”.)//


Nothing at all to do with The Elliott Argument, its conclusion, structure, or any of it's premises. Moving right along.



//“TheAtheistKilla” proudly flaunts his achievement by stating that over 20 thousand atheists have failed to successfully refute the argument. Of course he doesn’t realize that the argument is so “simpletonish” that only few Atheists care to refute it. So i’ll lower my standards for a few minutes and just do it, get it over with. Not that “TheAtheistKilla” is going to acknowledge it as a successful rebuttal of course, and he’s obviously going to count me as the 20.001st on his list. Well, so be it.//


Nothing at all to do with The Elliott Argument, its conclusion, structure, or any of it's premises. Moving right along.



//Before and after this “TheAtheistKilla” “proves” that irrational and illogical is synonymous to lying, implying Atheists are liars. Knowing liars that is.//

FAIL!! TEA never uses the words lying, liars, or knowing liars. Instead, the extended version of TEA uses the phrases irrational, illogical, and incorrect. The reason that both STE and SCPN are illogical, irrational, and incorrect has absolutely nothing to do with atheists being liars. We go to exhaustive measures in our official blog to prove both concepts are flawed, however not one of these proofs is that atheists are known liars. So we will call this a failed straw-man and leave him with a NICE TRY!!

_________________________________________________________________________________

**So up to this point he has failed numerous times to even try and refute TEA, and the one thing he did say was a weak strawman that fell flat on its face. Next he leaves TEA alone and attempts to debunk creationism using our acronyms STE and SCPN. Lets all get ready to face palm his statements that I utterly demolish!! LOL


//P1 – The universe exists, and consists of ‘something’. Describing the nature of the universe is done by verifying facts, rationally or empirically.//

Agreed, the Universe does exist and consists of something. Also agreed that the nature of the Universe can be described by verifying facts, rationally or empirically.




//P2 - There are two kinds of facts: hard facts and soft facts.  Hard facts hold predictive capabilities.//

Agreed


//P3 - It is only possible to verify a fact by means of logic. The purpose of logic is to find facts.//

Agreed. Without logic you would not be able to verify facts



//P4 - The existence of an uncreated creator, as well as STE and SCPNCEU, are not verified as hard facts.//


FAIL!! TEA makes no claims about the existence or validity of an Uncreated Creator option so we have no burden of proof. Also STE and SCPN have been verified with hard facts to be illogical irrational incorrect and having no evidence.





//P5 - Combined facts together hold predictive capabilities that one of these individual facts doesn’t.//

We have numerous hard facts which prove both STE and SCPN are irrational illogical and incorrect. Also they have no supporting scientific evidence, while all the evidence actually points to the contrary view.




//P6 - All verified hard facts together hold no predictive capability about the existence of an uncreated creator, but they do for STE and SCPNCEU.//

FAIL!! TEA makes no claims about the existence or validity of an Uncreated Creator option so we have no burden of proof. Also STE and SCPN have been verified with hard facts to be illogical irrational incorrect and having no evidence.




P7 - STE and SCPNCEU attract more legitimacy to be investigated, or tried as verified hard facts, than an uncreated creator.//

FAIL!! This is a baseless nonsensical assertion with zero evidence or support. The fact is that STE and SCPN have both been proven to be illogical, irrational, incorrect, and having no evidence. If you would ever like to debate either of these two issues just let us know. We go into exhaustive detail on our official blog to destroy both of these hypothesis. Furthermore, talking about the Uncreated Creator option as having no verified hard facts is futile as TEA makes no claims about the existence of one.





//P8 - Investigating the predictive path of combined verified hard facts is more logical than deviating towards the claim of the existence of an uncreated creator.//

TEA uses both all the verified hard facts and all the scientific evidence (along with philosophical and mathematical truths) to prove both STE and SCPN are illogical. Again TEA makes no claims about the existence or validity of a UC option. 




//P9 - Creationists claim the existence of an uncreated creator is a hard fact, but in reality meets the standards of an unverified soft fact.//

Creationists do, but TEA doesn't...I thought you wanted to defeat TEA. As the title of your article was REBUTTING The Elliott Argument. LOL!! So you have failed to defeat TEA and made a weak attempt to shift goal posts...If you want to debate the existence of an Uncreated Creator that would be an entirely different debate all together. Luckily for you that's not what I came here for tonight, or what you are supposed to be focusing on if you wish to refute my formal argument.



//T1 - Atheism is logical, rational and has no evidence to back it up.//


FAIL!!

P1 - Both STE and SCPN are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.
P2 - If you deny or disbelieve in an Uncreated Creator option as the cause of the universe, then your only two options are”STE” and ”SCPNC”.
P3 - Atheists deny or disbelieve in an Uncreated Creator option as the cause of the universe.
T - Atheists are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence.

If you don't like the conclusion you would have to defeat one of the premises or prove the structure invalid. You have failed to even attempt this.



//T2 - Creationism is illogical, irrational and has no evidence to back it up. //

TEA Makes no claims about creationism in any of its premises or conclusion. You have failed miserably. If you ever want to debate creationism I can destroy you on that topic next if you wish.


________________________________________________________________________________



Conclusion:

The author of this article failed on all counts to even try and refute TEA. He never attacked any of the premises, he never attacked the structure, he never tried to prove atheists have more options than two provided, he never made a stand for STE or SCPN, and 80% of his article had absolutely nothing at all to do with the formal argument. Furthermore, he kept talking about the Uncreated Creator option which TEA makes no claims about. He failed on all counts and this response took me about 8 Minutes. LOL. It wasn't even worth making it look pretty or adding any pictures. What a joke...Is this the best you got atheists?? haha. Next!!




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Elliott Argument (Official)

Chad Elliott The Atheist Killa

Progressive Community Church Stockton, Ca. is DANGEROUS (Open Letter)