User talk:OptiPest

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, OptiPest! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Er... Blue (pester) 21:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ach, if you would like to write an essay you can put it as a page called "Essay:Elliot arguement" or somesuch. Тy^{Bother me} 21:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Elliott Argument

I have created the page Essay:The Elliott Argument so that you may have fun with it. As I am NEW to all this, please advise me of anything I can do to make my articles any better. Thank you! OptiPest (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Also, you can add {{Essay:OptiPest}} to the top of it. Тy^{Bother me} 22:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to do that. Thank you again! OptiPest (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(COMMENT REMOVED) OptiPest (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, someone's YEC boner is on display. I don't think you're going to find anyone who's willing to "debate" someone who calls them a pussy and displays all the sophistication of a 13-year-old talking trash over Xbox Live. I don't see why anyone should give you any of their time or give half a baked shit about your opinion of your supposed "ownage". Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 06:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the user page of OptiPest and his essay, I think that the level of sophistication of the debate challenger is completely appropriate.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As per my NO ASSHOLE CLAUSE, I removed the Atheist Killa's demands for a challenge and call him a coward and OWND for doing such. I will not put up with childish temper tantrums and if he cannot play with a little measure of civility, he can go blow himself! OptiPest (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(COMMENT REMOVED) OptiPest (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I will not have an asshole commenting the same BS he does to everyone on his FB Page and other sites! If he were a real man, he would know how to talk to a person in a civil fashion. Since he does not, he is no better than the scum on the top of a stagnant puddle! If you would like to see what was said by this douche, you can check the history! OptiPest (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(COMMENT REMOVED) OptiPest (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Buddy you need to stop giving this clown attention. When a person is this far gone with this many delusions and with that many problems, you leave them alone to their corner to talk to themselves. The world is in total chaos because you give an idiot attention, and we're all suffering because of it. Please stop with this article and let it die. Let Chad die. Let him fade away and nobody ever remember him. ^{— Unsigned, by: 204.45.134.110 / talk / contribs} 08:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What he/she said. -- Nx / talk 08:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

204 speaks with wisdom. If you debate with a fool he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. Sophie^Wilder 10:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So far he has failed to use any of his moronic experience and has got himself blocked indefinitely from his own Talk page on WP for personal attacks, having a battleground mentality, and general failure to get the point. He claims that he is undefeated and I want everyone to see his argument and tear it apart with reason! He is at a breaking point and we want that mother fucker to snap! We are not looking to reason with him at all, we want to destroy him with his own argument! OptiPest (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reason 295 that this world is in chaos. You've given your attention to a moron with an acorn for a brain. And you can't even see that you're doing the world damage by letting him think he's winning. I don't understand humanity, I truly don't. All you have done is inflated his egocentric personality and added to his spotlight. There's a reason he has delusions of grandiose, it's because people bother with him. Imagine how much better the world would be if we let him shout to the skies and paid no attention whatsoever to him. That's the true way to fuck with him. Shame that you created this article. Absolute shame. ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.73.41.174 / talk / contribs}

Please make sure you sign for comments with 4 tildes (~~~~) Now if you don't understand that he will never be forgotten and he will never actually be left alone, you would realize the best course of action is to publicly humiliate the fuckwit! You do not have to worry about this and you can ignore him, but you are just as bad for commenting while trying to ignore! Do whatever you do and let me do whatever I do! Have a nice day! OptiPest (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cut it out

Stop provoking him, or you'll get a block too. And don't remove comments. -- Nx / talk 18:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off a little provocative, but I feel the right to instigate and show this individual for who he really is. I will restrain myself from anymore provocation on his talk page. I only removed a comment on my essay talk page, because it was resolved on my user talk page. Besides, I didn't think it was against the rules to remove comments from my material. But okay! OptiPest (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We block people for provocation? If that were true, most of the site would be blocked whenever a major troll trudges through. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Elliott Argument NO MORE

As I see it, I have done my part in showing that the argument has no merit for even the consideration of intelligent discussion, I decided to request the essay be removed and it was. There is nothing to see here people, move along and carry on with your lives! This argument is no more and will fade from your memory over the next 6 hours. OptiPest (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, RW should probably have a page on the Elliot argument if the substance of it isn't covered somewhere else. I found this page to be a brilliant response to the Elliot argument.

Underneath it is an unstated assumption, that personal positions should be based on "reason and logic." By showing that atheism, as such, is a belief and not a logical conclusion, Elliot thinks he's won an argument. Yet this was obvious to me when I was, what was it, about twelve years old?

Elliot has only confronted a naive and dishonest atheism, a form that doesn't know itself.

As one of the comments points out, Adamfludd proceeds to create a non-theist definition of God, minimally stated, something entirely outside what Elliot can conceive. All of these arguments are based on assumptions, which, by definition, are not "rational," they are part of the substance on which reason operates. It is sometimes possible to show that assumptions are in logical conflict, but it's entirely unclear what this proves, other than the fact of conflict. Unless we assume that there is no contradiction in The Truth. The Truth, by the way, is another possible definition of God. Reality.

I "believe in God," simply because I trust in Reality, that there is something that does not depend on my opinions and logic, yet that I cannot comprehensively know, and that is the same for all of us. This is not a logical proposition to be proven, it is an assumption, based on my personal experience.

Elliot, essentially, has a point, but is unable to see beyond his own identity as the Atheist Killa, and applies his point and then his bans even when confronted with someone who actually understands his argument and more. Does he have a neck tattoo? Does it matter? I haven't watched the videos, this computer doesn't have sound and I'm not exercised enough to spend more time on this!

Elliot claims to only ban people for being dishonest, but Adamfludd was, as far as I could see, totally honest in his comments on Elliot's site. Hence his foray there was a demonstration of Elliot's hypocrisy. Not to mention the stuck caps key. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And this. I'm suggesting we might want a page on the Elliott argument because there is, in fact, a lot of reference to it out there, but perhaps that's not enough to justify the reams of BS that will be generated. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)