The entire reply to Kelly’s critique of Chapter II is now up on the TIA forum:
Vox Day launches his tirade by attempting to confuse the reader and blur the line between scientific and non-scientific inquiry.
This is not only wrong, it is completely backward. Kelly fails to understand that the point of referencing the blatantly false claim to science by Jim Rose is to provide a simple and vivid picture of the way the New Atheist books are doing precisely the same thing. The Unholy Trinity’s attempts to argue “it is science” in support of their atheism are every bit as absurd, and as unscientific, as Jim Rose’s similar claims about nipple-piercing and lightbulb-chewing. My purpose is not to belittle science, nor confuse the reader, it is simply to clarify the line between that which is claimed to be science and is, and that which claims to be science and is not.
Also, please note that I’ve moved some of Bethyada’s comments on Kelly’s critiques to a different topic in the forums. If you want to respond to Kelly’s arguments, that’s just fine, but please don’t do so in the debate topic itself. It is too confusing and I’d like something that can be easily read through from start to finish without interruption.