|
Post by thomstark on Jun 21, 2012 10:31:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 22, 2012 6:20:00 GMT
Thanks Thom. Your second post should be the final word in this dispute. I anticipate neither Neil Godfrey or Richard Carrier will link to it.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jun 22, 2012 12:08:55 GMT
Well, that was a comprehensive beatdown.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Jun 23, 2012 2:51:17 GMT
Hi again, guys. I didn't say Carrier was right about everything in his chapter on pre-Christian science, but I was also just trying to be nice at the end of a scathing review. I wasn't making "grand conclusions." It's apples and oranges. If I had written an essay on pre-Christian science making all sorts of claims outside the field in which I'm trained, then Carrier and I would be comparable. But I didn't do that. I was merely writing an epitaph. By the way, I'm working hard on part two of "It Is Finished." All the best, Thom That's fair. But one thing that clearly comes across from your excellent essays is that Carrier cannot be trusted to deal with these historical data, or opposing arguments, in a fair and objective manner. I see no reason to think the lesson would be restricted to this topic alone. Since all of Carrier's work seems to converge on the same point - anti-Christianism - I find it likely the same tactics would be employed across the board.
|
|
|
Post by thomstark on Jun 23, 2012 6:35:23 GMT
"I see no reason to think the lesson would be restricted to this topic alone. Since all of Carrier's work seems to converge on the same point - anti-Christianism - I find it likely the same tactics would be employed across the board."
Yes, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt at first, and was willfully hopeful that he would be as he says he is: self-corrective when confronted with facts that contradict his views.
Unfortunately, it is clear now that he is not interested in self-correction (the claim that he is is merely self-aggrandizing rhetoric) and is not reliable. I still do think he gets some things right in some other discussions, but a clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Jun 23, 2012 11:04:33 GMT
There are many great moments on your post. Here's one:
In a nutshell, it shows that he can speak confidently from a position of ignorance while clearly demonstrating he didn't give your reply a serious read.
Thanks for taking the effort and time to respond as you did.
|
|
|
Post by tolkein on Jun 23, 2012 16:56:55 GMT
That's fair. But one thing that clearly comes across from your excellent essays is that Carrier cannot be trusted to deal with these historical data, or opposing arguments, in a fair and objective manner. I see no reason to think the lesson would be restricted to this topic alone. Since all of Carrier's work seems to converge on the same point - anti-Christianism - I find it likely the same tactics would be employed across the board.
I came across this on his blog when he was arguing (in the face of all the evidence) that the Anglo-Saxons didn't have lots of water-mills, this being evidence to Carrier that Christian societies had not moved on from Roman technology. Quite simply, Carrier was wrong, and I posted specific evidence for the prevalence of said water-mills. Carrier didn't like it and argued the toss, changed the argument, even when better qualified historians stepped in. His arguments can't be trusted in my view.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 27, 2012 16:17:39 GMT
Verenna has an unexpected post. I wonder if Neil Widowfield will comment on it?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 27, 2012 21:30:33 GMT
Verenna has an unexpected post. I wonder if Neil Widowfield will comment on it? Not that surprising really. The Carrier/Doherty Mythers have been at war with the Zeitgeist/Acharya Mythers for many years. "Rook"/Verenna/Whatshisname is simply parroting his master Carrier here, as usual. That kid's never had an original thought in his life.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 28, 2012 0:04:19 GMT
Ah, that explains it.
|
|
|
Post by thomstark on Jun 28, 2012 18:25:56 GMT
Yesterday Carrier "revised" his Dying Messiah Redux post, without indicating where he made changes to his post. Many of his original boneheaded arguments are now consigned to Google cache. Nevertheless, while he has conceded a few points, he maintains several of the old-straw man arguments, adds new straw-man arguments to the mix, and displays that he didn't read or understand major sections of my "It Is Finished" posts. And of course, he doesn't link to them. I don't even need to respond to his revision; everything he argues is still refuted in the "It Is Finished" posts; he just seems to be oblivious to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 29, 2012 5:01:35 GMT
Yesterday Carrier "revised" his Dying Messiah Redux post, without indicating where he made changes to his post. Many of his original boneheaded arguments are now consigned to Google cache. Nevertheless, while he has conceded a few points, he maintains several of the old-straw man arguments, adds new straw-man arguments to the mix, and displays that he didn't read or understand major sections of my "It Is Finished" posts. And of course, he doesn't link to them. I don't even need to respond to his revision; everything he argues is still refuted in the "It Is Finished" posts; he just seems to be oblivious to that fact. That's not the first time he has revised without notice. He really needs to stop doing that.
|
|
|
Post by thomstark on Jun 29, 2012 6:38:27 GMT
He did put a note at the top of the post saying it had been revised as of the 27th, but he didn't link to my posts which instigated his revision and he didn't indicate which parts of the post he had revised.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 29, 2012 9:22:01 GMT
He did put a note at the top of the post saying it had been revised as of the 27th, but he didn't link to my posts which instigated his revision and he didn't indicate which parts of the post he had revised. Well that's useless.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Jun 29, 2012 15:02:15 GMT
Yesterday Carrier "revised" his Dying Messiah Redux post, without indicating where he made changes to his post. Many of his original boneheaded arguments are now consigned to Google cache. You should get a screen shot of that, as you never know if it might come in handy some time in the future (a year or so from now, Carrier will deny ever having made those boneheaded arguments and accuse you of misrepresenting him). Carrier's fans think he is some great scholar, but such sneakiness shows otherwise. No true scholar would try to sweep his stupid arguments under the rug. Of course, I'm not surprised that someone who spends so much effort rewriting history would also rewrite his own history.
|
|