tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post7205927942431219136..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: Antony Flew's Bogus BookRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-68088003651602485572011-06-06T15:44:35.932-07:002011-06-06T15:44:35.932-07:00No one has accused Flew of being unable to speak g...No one has accused Flew of being unable to speak grammatical English. To the contrary, the evidence shows he (in his final years) could not remember events in his recent past, and thus could not construct sound and sometimes not even logically valid arguments for things, or even arguments consistent with his own past statements.<br /><br />The article you point to actually proves both points in Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-7279651717451422102011-06-06T12:59:28.453-07:002011-06-06T12:59:28.453-07:00As for Dawkins and others who think that Anthony F...As for Dawkins and others who think that Anthony Flewis senile, I think that samples such as the following: http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/flew-speaks-out-professor-antony-flew-reviews-the-god-delusion.htm, would prove that he has logical consistency, good grammar, and also a acute memory still even in hsi later years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-53805393650936974972009-01-29T16:40:00.000-08:002009-01-29T16:40:00.000-08:00Simina:First, why should I be "reverent"? Flew is ...<B>Simina:</B><BR/><BR/>First, why should I be "reverent"? Flew is not a King or a God. Irreverence is a signature American virtue, and I consider being called "irreverent" a compliment.<BR/><BR/>Second, I don't believe Flew is "insane" (see <A HREF="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/12/craig-annoyed.html" REL="nofollow">my more recent discussion</A> of whether Flew is "crazy"). I believe Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-60722333133645151542009-01-24T16:57:00.000-08:002009-01-24T16:57:00.000-08:00Your comments are completely irreverent. I have li...Your comments are completely irreverent. I have listened to Antony Flew and he speaks very coherently and is not at all insane. Antony Flew was annoyed by attacks from atheists that he lost his mind, and he repeatedly said the book is written by him, and yes, he did not type it, because he is 80.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering why atheists call anything that has to do with believing in God - "Siminahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14942619956468976320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-40875665133367977512008-02-12T09:24:00.000-08:002008-02-12T09:24:00.000-08:00Here are some Wright statements which seem strange...Here are some Wright statements which seem strange :-<BR/><BR/>John 20 verses 30-31 says 'Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'<BR/><BR/>According to Bishop NT Wright , in chapter 4 of his Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-53838533904783918532008-02-11T18:47:00.000-08:002008-02-11T18:47:00.000-08:00Charlie: Thanks for your kind remarks. I do have m...<B>Charlie:</B> Thanks for your kind remarks. I do have my limit, though. I get snarky when people test my patience or repeatedly trample common sense, although I admit merely being mean isn't quite the same as being shrill, so I think I get what you're saying.<BR/><BR/>You asked: <I>Are there any christian apologists that you respect for the presentation of their arguements? Any that seem to be Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-58576942995800604732008-02-11T18:44:00.000-08:002008-02-11T18:44:00.000-08:00Everyone: I kept the above exchanges even though t...<B>Everyone:</B> I kept the above exchanges even though they straddle deletion standards, largely because they're f***ing funny. If you have my strange sense of humor, anyway.<BR/><BR/><B>SMA:</B> Is English your second language? You seem occasionally unaware of certain points of grammar and common usage, even beyond the case I already noted, and this makes it hard for me to get your meaning. ForRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-72581317689478963792008-02-11T12:15:00.000-08:002008-02-11T12:15:00.000-08:00Richard:I just want to say thanks for your intelle...Richard:<BR/><BR/>I just want to say thanks for your intellectual honesty. I've read your blog, most of the posts and your responses and I'm impressed by what seems to me to be your dishing out the straight poop as you see it. I really admire that.<BR/><BR/>I've been in the horse business for almost 20 years. The horse world is not unlike your philosophical one: the disagreements are deep andCharliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980139656040827872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-80418783985627431962008-01-29T12:28:00.000-08:002008-01-29T12:28:00.000-08:00First of all you have not said anything about quan...First of all you have not said anything about quantum physics and secondly you hardly know enough about me to know what my understanding is. The disagreement is over whether the quantum description of nature is mechanistic and if you say that it is, then you will be up against Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, and the most of the physics community.. <BR/><BR/>If you want to argue that quantum physics Mackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-66723481488671676332008-01-29T11:48:00.000-08:002008-01-29T11:48:00.000-08:00And you base this judgementalism on what? That I d...<I><BR/>And you base this judgementalism on what? That I dare to queestion what Richard Carrier asserts?</I><BR/><BR/>I base it on having what I take to be a better understanding of quantum physics than you.<BR/><BR/>It is very difficult to prove a negative, but I hadn't heard of Mr. Carrier before he appeared in Brian Flemming's film, <I>The God Who Wasn't There</I>.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Carrier has in B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-65775101531826875232008-01-29T11:00:00.000-08:002008-01-29T11:00:00.000-08:00I can't help but wonder if the identity of whoever...I can't help but wonder if the identity of whoever put Richard Carrier up to interview Flew isn't right before my eyes.Mackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-15856166800161220582008-01-29T10:58:00.000-08:002008-01-29T10:58:00.000-08:00And you base this judgementalism on what? That I d...And you base this judgementalism on what? That I dare to queestion what Richard Carrier asserts? Talk about true believers, Quakers have nothing over you guys on that score.<BR/><BR/>Bohm wrote books and books about the the nonmechanistic description of nature, but that doesn't matter. A cult follower will only believe the cult leader tells him to believe, even if you put evidence to the contraryMackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-24125911864390442982008-01-29T10:40:00.000-08:002008-01-29T10:40:00.000-08:00Are you suggesting that when Carrier asserts that ...<I><BR/>Are you suggesting that when Carrier asserts that I am misinterpreting Bohm and that Bohm didn’t mean that the quantum description is nonmechanical, that I should believe Carrier and not the words of David Bohm that explicitly use the phrase nonmechanistic, a subject which Bohm writes about in great length in all his books?<BR/><BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm further suggesting you don't knowB. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-12462826395640864002008-01-29T10:37:00.000-08:002008-01-29T10:37:00.000-08:00How about the fact that I have read Bohm, includin...How about the fact that I have read Bohm, including Quantum Theory and Wholeness and the Implicate Order – as well as a number of other books on the subject such as Infinite Potential, the biography of Bohm by David Peat, David Z Albert’s Quantum Mechanics and Experience, The Meaning of Quantum Theory by Jim Baggott, The Non-Local Universe by Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau, Physics and Mackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-24696428653450585332008-01-29T10:17:00.000-08:002008-01-29T10:17:00.000-08:00To clarify: I've read Carrier's book, and have a d...To clarify: I've read Carrier's book, and have a degree in Physics which included courses in Quantum Physics.<BR/><BR/>What qualifies you to comment, or select quotations from, or interpret Bohm?B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-296365635864710172008-01-29T10:11:00.000-08:002008-01-29T10:11:00.000-08:00As is indicated in Carrier's fine book, which you ...<I>As is indicated in Carrier's fine book, which you refuse to read, he understands quantum physics as well as one can without advanced degrees in math and/or physics.</I><BR/><BR/>This does not make a case. What is the basis of Carrier’s understanding understanding? I offered you a direct quote from physicist David Bohm’s classic textbook on Quantum Theory If <I>you</I> are not too lazy to clickMackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-312359538301289152008-01-29T09:34:00.000-08:002008-01-29T09:34:00.000-08:00SMA, my case is as follows:As is indicated in Carr...SMA, my case is as follows:<BR/><BR/>As is indicated in Carrier's fine book, which you refuse to read, he understands quantum physics as well as one can without advanced degrees in math and/or physics.<BR/><BR/>Without having read it, how can you know whether you agree or disagree with him... half the time, you misunderstand what he is talking about. Should that misunderstanding turn out to be B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-39004689870998619662008-01-29T08:54:00.000-08:002008-01-29T08:54:00.000-08:00SMA, what are you talking about?No one is insinuat...SMA, what are you talking about?<BR/><BR/>No one is insinuating that the role of being of a reader here is to agree with Richard Carrier, we're just getting annoyed that you are lowering the signal to noise ratio.RobHuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15130358325310970527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-35714238041970571092008-01-29T08:51:00.000-08:002008-01-29T08:51:00.000-08:00You are calling me a troll? I thought trolls were ...You are calling me a troll? <BR/><BR/>I thought trolls were people who intentionally antagonize other posters and otherwise do not contribute to the conversation. If you think that Mr Carrier understands quantum physics , then make your case. <BR/><BR/>I avoided Mr Carriers assertion that I am lazy, after I said I would read his articles about what "supernatural" personally means to him, <I>if Mackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-59307649040412705042008-01-29T08:08:00.000-08:002008-01-29T08:08:00.000-08:00SMA, I think you're a borderline troll who doesn't...SMA, I think you're a borderline troll who doesn't understand Carrier's definitions or relationship to language <B>because you haven't read his book where he lays these things out</B>.<BR/><BR/>He has a lengthy section on, amongst other things, the implications quantum physics has wrt the metaphysical naturalist worldview.<BR/><BR/>You've quote mined, as near as I can tell, while he has a B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-87265834071509384972008-01-29T08:03:00.000-08:002008-01-29T08:03:00.000-08:00And i might point out that since Mr carrier said t...And i might point out that since Mr carrier said that he had said all he had to say concerning the meaning of certain words, that there was no reason to continue that particular thread of the dialogue.<BR/><BR/>However I have found that misconceptions about the quantum description of nature are widespead in our society, even as the groundbreaking work in this area is almost a hundred years old, Mackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-73674138385835382612008-01-29T07:54:00.000-08:002008-01-29T07:54:00.000-08:00Agreed, but I prefer to concentrate on what I fee...Agreed, but I prefer to concentrate on what I feel is the most essential to the subject matter of the debate, which is what i have been doing. <BR/><BR/>I expect other readers may feel the same.Mackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-31969971988230149752008-01-29T07:51:00.000-08:002008-01-29T07:51:00.000-08:00As someone who is subscribed to these comments bec...As someone who is subscribed to these comments because a lot of what was said was quite interesting, I want to say that I agree with B. Dewhirst.<BR/><BR/>SMA, your comments do come across as if you're criticising Richard without having done your research.<BR/><BR/>It's the nature of the internet that people rarely come to a full agreement on blogs / discussion forums, so I suggest that there is RobHuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15130358325310970527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-49259561646543018042008-01-29T07:50:00.000-08:002008-01-29T07:50:00.000-08:00Reading the other party's argument is also essenti...Reading the other party's argument is also essential to philosophical discourse. Indeed, it is a prerequisite.B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-32865186855318498532008-01-29T07:48:00.000-08:002008-01-29T07:48:00.000-08:00You are entitled to your opinion, But in my opinio...You are entitled to your opinion, But in my opinion inquiry and debate are essential to philosophical discourse.Mackenzie Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956586274740574912noreply@blogger.com