PZ Myers Claims He is Being Sued by Richard Carrier

This entry was posted in social justice atheism, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to PZ Myers Claims He is Being Sued by Richard Carrier

  1. jbsptfn says:

    Oh, brother. Those guys are such a joke.

    BTW, a certain fundy atheist had something to say about you:

    http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/labeling-enemy.html

  2. Kevin says:

    Skeppy thinks considering the words of Richard Dawkins is the reasonable thing for Christians to do? Sure, right after homosexuals begin considering the words of Westboro Baptist.

  3. jbsptfn says:

    I like what B. Prokop had to say on the DI link that Skeppy linked to. He basically said that Skep and Papa Plagiarizer have a default stance, which is (in my own words. I am not Papalinton) unexamined disagreement without any thought whatsoever.

    There was another person on Skep’s site that tried to explain something to him, and when he didn’t understand it, he said that he kept disagreeing with him. This guy was really upset when he found out that Skep was commenting on Feser’s blog. I can see why he was banned there, as well as on DI. Heck, Joe Hinman banned him on his sites, and he is banned on the CADRE blog as well.

  4. jbsptfn August 1, 2016 at 1:14 pm
    “Oh, brother. Those guys are such a joke.”
    * Its hard to know which is worse sometimes, at least in terms of all their A+ drama self flagellating white male Western guilt Islam/Christianity false equivalency feminist bullshit.

    Pity really, Carrier has actually done a lot of excellent research and speaking, and I guess if I dug down hard enough I could find something nice to say about PZ but honestly, I just don’t have the ability to hold my nose long enough to do that.

    “BTW, a certain fundy atheist had something to say about you:
    http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/labeling-enemy.html
    * Thanks for the link, never heard of those folks, I think they are about half right in that post.

  5. Michael says:

    Skeppy thinks considering the words of Richard Dawkins is the reasonable thing for Christians to do? Sure, right after homosexuals begin considering the words of Westboro Baptist.

    Skeppy is quite confused.

    I use the term New Atheist precisely because I am trying to distinguish between the Gnus and atheists. I have made it clear many times that I do not think all atheists are New Atheists.

    The A+ crowd are New Atheists. They were New Atheists prior to elevatorgate. Back in the day, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were good allies.

    Never said all transhumanists are New Atheists. I simply noted that the evidence indicates Zoltan Istvan is a New Atheist. Just because he holds weird ideas doesn’t mean he is not a True New Atheist. Sam Harris has some weird ideas when it comes to meditation and drug use, but that doesn’t cause anyone to claim he is not a True New Atheist.

    As for Us vs. Them, that is the bread-and-butter, meat-and-potatoes of the New Atheist Movement. If you want a blog that truly demonstrates that mentality, check out Hemant Mehta’s Friendly Atheist. On a very regular basis, they look for oddball Christian stories to pass off as representative. Just yesterday, they posted about a 20 year-old radio show that had people call in sharing their recollections of attending a Christian summer camp as a child. The stories highlighted not only sound like an urban legend, but get passed off as being representative of Christianity and Judaism when they are not:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/01/this-is-worse-than-the-worst-scene-from-jesus-camp/

  6. jbsptfn says:

    More fun from Skep

    What I mean is that the nature of his posts is more antagonistic than conducive to reasoned discourse. I agree that there are people there who can and do rise above the tone that Mikey sets.

    That’s interesting, because Skeppy likes to hurl insults and ridicule, even though he has no facts to back anything up. When the CADRE and Joe Hinman blocked him, he said that he wanted us to discuss things with him man to man. That’s interesting, because he rarely discusses anything like a man. On DI, one person said that throwing peanuts at a monkey is more intellectually satisfying than arguing with Skep.

  7. Kevin says:

    Reasoned discourse requires that both sides understand the other’s position and interpret the other’s position charitably. The problem is that after at least ten or twelve years of doing this, I find that the vast majority of New Atheists I encounter (admittedly online, which lowers the level of discourse automatically) are not interested in being charitable toward religious belief or their supporting arguments, and quite frankly many of their counter arguments are very poor due to a lack of understanding the Christian’s position. Jerry Coyne instantly springs to mind here.

    If Skeppy wants reasoned discourse, perhaps the first thing he should do is disavow people like Dawkins, who do absolutely nothing to be charitable toward Christians.

  8. TFBW says:

    Thing is, Skeppy probably thinks that Dawkins is being perfectly fair and rational. If you’re well entrenched in the New Atheist dogma that all theism is irrational, then that’s going to skew your view of what counts as an understanding of your opponent’s position, and what counts as a charitable interpretation of it — to the extent that you probably think real intellectual engagement is pointless: all you can do is lecture, or mock, or kick, if that has the desired mind-changing effect (although that one’s still mostly a fantasy at this point). As far as I’m concerned, there can be no real engagement with New Atheism, because it pre-poisons the well. It starts from a position where theism is considered intellectually bankrupt.

  9. Kevin says:

    Well as a counter example, I think social progressives are generally ridiculous in many of their ideological stances. I have already formed my opinion of those stances. But if I were to engage them in what I wanted to he reasoned discourse, I would not quote Milo at them. I would take what they say and respond based upon what they said, and not based upon my pre-existing opinion or their ideological opponents.

    Skeppy likely can’t do that.

  10. stcordova says:

    I take it if PZ shrugs off Carrier’s cease and desist order over defamation, PZ will shrug off my complaint that he defamed my character by calling me a Slimy Sewer Goblin.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/16/sal-cordova-is-a-slimy-little/

  11. stcordova August 2, 2016 at 1:10 pm
    “I take it if PZ shrugs off Carrier’s cease and desist order over defamation, PZ will shrug off my complaint that he defamed my character by calling me a Slimy Sewer Goblin.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/16/sal-cordova-is-a-slimy-little/
    * Seriously, are you a young Earth creationist? A biological evolution denier?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s