Monday, June 04, 2018

John Loftus on Richard Carrier

JWL: Richard Carrier thinks this book is bad to say the least, but I find Carrier to be shrill, very offensive and exaggerated in defense of his own work.

Here. 

7 comments:

John Mitchell said...

Carrier is a nutcase and it shows everytime he has to deal with dissent, especially on his blog. The tone he uses to deal with criticism is quite frankly insufferable.


He may suffer from narcistic personality disorder, for all i know.
Just take a look at what thinks he has accomplished:

Showed Jesus did (most likely) not exist
Refuted the argument from reason (for all time to come)
Refuted the fine-tuning argument (for all time to come)
Proved naturalistic moral realism
Showed that all moral philosophies ever invented are exactly all the same
Reconciled Quantum Mechanics with Relativity Theory (yeah....really)
Proved that the existence of nothing entails universes popping into existence
Created a new probability theory that merges frequentism and bayesianism




Victor Reppert said...

Though I have to wonder why John, all of a sudden, has come to believe that there is something wrong with being shrill, very offensive, and exaggerated in defense of his own work.

John Mitchell said...

There was, some time ago, this debate about who should call himself a philosopher.
Loftus accused Lowder of not being a philosopher due to lack of credentials.

In the ensuing drama Loftus said the same about Carrier who subsequently positioned himself on Lowder's side

That may have sparked it.

And about being 'shrill and very offensive' ?
Loftus always had this schtick about being as insufferable as any New Atheist could get and then switching it up and claiming to be the nice guy who understands and respects Christians/Christianity

Jake Elwood XVI said...

" I find Carrier to be shrill, very offensive and exaggerated in defense of his own work."

The level of chutzpah in this comment is just bewildering.

Joe Hinman said...

I was "debating" him (I was really in college debate it's not the same) on secular outpost back in 99. way before he got his doctorate. I was one of the first people he debated on Jesus myther stuff. I have discussed his paint by numbers Bayes history thin with some major historians none had herd of him and none were impressed by his use of Bayes in history.

I have also seen him in displays of anger at other scholars who had the audacity not to agree with him. He may be a scholar but he is no gentleman.

Joe Hinman said...

John

He may suffer from narcistic personality disorder, for all i know.
Just take a look at what thinks he has accomplished:

Showed Jesus did (most likely) not exist
Refuted the argument from reason (for all time to come)
Refuted the fine-tuning argument (for all time to come)
Proved naturalistic moral realism
Showed that all moral philosophies ever invented are exactly all the same
Reconciled Quantum Mechanics with Relativity Theory (yeah....really)
Proved that the existence of nothing entails universes popping into existence
Created a new probability theory that merges frequentism and bayesianism


He made Bayes great again

Joe Hinman said...

and then there's Loftus,


I asked William Lane Craig if Loftus was his student,I told Christians calling him a liar to stop because Craig said he was. He expressed his gratitude and I asked him to do the same for me.I gave him the number of my department where i was doing gradate work. Atheists were calling me a liar making like I never went to school according to them.

If memory serves I think he had occasion to be on UTD campus and went to the department and talked to several people about me, He did actually make the statement that i was'the real intellectual deal," But when it came to actual atheists claiming I never went to graduate school I asked him to post on carm he just said "O why should you care what they think? He never retured the favor.