The aim of name-calling

One thought on “The aim of name-calling”

1. Thanks for posting this blog, Mr. Godfrey. I am reminded of several attacks against mythicist Acharya S (D.M. Murdock) by both theists and atheists. There are a few that really stand out as disturbing. I couldn’t believe it when I found out that John Loftus, of the ‘Debunking Christianity’ blog, has refused to discuss the work by Acharya S on her mythicist position because he says that Richard Carrier persuaded him not to mention it. Who else has Carrier persuaded not to mention Acharya S/Murdock?

   “Carrier has apparently been going around ever since telling people not to mention Acharya or even discuss her work at all in blogs/articles/books etc.”

   Speaking of Richard Carrier, he made egregious and sloppy errors in his criticisms in his Luxor article:

   “However, in “skimming” Brunner’s text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner’s “IV D”), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)…”

   Carrier’s criticism in his Luxor article was so bad that he should apologize for it.

   Dr. James McGrath won’t discuss her work either but, I figure he’s just too much of an intellectual coward to do so. All he has to offer the mythicist debate is juvenile ridicule and derogatory remarks and total misrepresentation of mythicists, such as what’s he’s been doing with Earl Doherty’s work.

   Here we have Tim Callahan making insulting remarks:

   Skeptic Magazine Critique of Zeitgeist Part 1

   Here are some other blatant examples.

   Richard Carrier on Zeitgeist part 1

   Richard Dawkins on ZEITGEIST, Part 1

   American Atheist Plagiarizes Acharya’s Work?

   Another Nasty “Atheist Experience”

   Here we have a Christian who’s a professional historian making insulting remarks, which is addressed here Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning ‘Zeitgeist, Part 1’

   The new sourcebook below addresses the criticisms of the original sources in Zeitgeist part 1.

   The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)

   “These new scholarly sources render all of the anti-Zeitgeist part 1 videos and reviews etc obsolete. The anti-ZGers and other critics will need to start all over. ” posted here

   I’m reminded of Acharya’s review of ‘Jesus: God, Man or Myth?’ by Herb Cutner:

   “Indeed, there is hardly a mythicist who has not experienced such treatment, even at the hands of other mythicists and/or freethinkers, another fact highlighted by Cutner, who shows that the early modern mythicists were viciously attacked not only by Christians but also by other “rationalists” and “freethinkers” who, in their attempts to remain “respectable” with the Christian elite, mindlessly fell in line and displayed a real lack of critical thinking. Professional jealousy also factors into this type of vitriol, as various scholars want their particular interpretation to become that which is accepted by the establishment…”

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.