Richard Carrier has his own Wikipedia devoted just to him

I need tinkled in my undies when I saw this.

This is an official site dedicated to cataloging and responding to critics of Dr. Richard Carrier’s work in the fields of ancient history and modern philosophy, as well as correcting Dr. Carrier’s errors when any are confirmed and improving his work accordingly. This site is fully endorsed by Dr. Carrier, but its content is written and created by fans of his work, with occasional advice and contributions by Dr. Carrier himself. The views expressed on this site might not always be his own (and when they aren’t, often this will be stated), but he does take the trouble to verify that everything said here is at least arguable and not illogical or demonstrably false. If you think you’ve found an exception, feel free to contact the site manager. If you’re right, corrections will be made. For more information about Dr. Carrier and his work see The Official Website of Richard Carrier, Ph.D..

This project is unlikely ever to be complete, but it will always be of use while in progress. Our primary catalogue is alphabetical by author (filed by the critic’s name or pseudonym). A system of tags is available that allows browsing by subject or target piece. A search engine has been set up so as to allow a focused cross section of the entire network of debates on any issue. Be sure and follow our Twitter account and Facebook page for updates!

This deserves a laughing cat award, especially for the messiah-like picture of Carrier on the home page:

You Might Also Like

15 Replies to “Richard Carrier has his own Wikipedia devoted just to him”

  1. So *your* blog has a picture of Superman who is an overt messianic figure, but a raw image of Carrier on his wiki is “messianic” because you say so. I think that’s called projection.

  2. “I am no less a philosopher than Aristotle or Hume. My knowledge, education, and qualifications certainly match theirs in every relevant respect… “For you cannot be successful in anything of importance if you have a poor or even incorrect grasp of yourself . . .” (Dick Carrier)
    “He who thinks himself worthy of great things, being unworthy of them, is vain.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 4.3)

    1. …..”avid fans span the world”……………………………………… off Dick’s profile. In the Antipodes poppies get chopped down. It’s called tall poppy syndrome. Self inflation leads to self explosion. Pop, goes the cock.

    2. Yes, someone disagreed with you on the internet. I’m sure you will make a full recovery.

      The Carrier wiki links to over 400 criticisms of Carrier’s work in addition to the tweets of criticisms like Stark’s and Ehrman’s fuller response to Carrier. Incidentally I’m also on the list of those who disagree with Carrier:

      It is a free internet world where we can all say what we want though isn’t it?

      1. Ben, you are attacking a straw man.

        I just think that the Messiah-worship afforded Carrier is completely laughable. And sick, but mainly laughable.

        1. “straw man” What are you even talking about?

          The assertion of “messiah worship” is not proof of such a claim. It’s just slander. Intellectual role model? Yes. Collaborator? Yes. Me being incapable of independent thought? You’re a long way from establishing anything resembling that (especially with the links provided). Sharing Carrier’s social goals and worldview and working with him is not a crime last time I checked.

          You’ve been nothing but superficial in your last 4 Carrier related posts after admitting you hadn’t even read the relevant material. And it was you originally who attacked a straw man as though Carrier was saying mythicism was therefore proved because Ehrman had not interacted with the best mythicist theory. Carrier presented a negative case in a post that was not designed to prove mythicism. His forthcoming book is what the positive case is for. Obviously.

          Thomas Verenna seems to speak highly of you. I’ll assume our recent exchanges are not indicative of your cognitive abilities generally speaking. I’m sure I’m just interacting with your anti-mainstream scholarship mental firewall and won’t take it personally.

          1. The Straw man you employ is the notion that we were offended that someone disagreed with us on the internet.

            Further, you noting of us asserting your criminality. This is at least twice now. You, like others, like to play the victim. You know, the idea that all of actual scholarship is intend to keep you down.

            Um, again, you really don’t get the logical fallacy thing do you? I’m not sure you are actually reading what I say, and if you are, if you understand it.

            Please, take it personally. You don’t seem to be able to function well in a discussion. I hope that was easy enough for you.

  3. Um, yeah, Jeremiah was peeved that I responded to 3 of his tweets and he’s still complaining about it. You’re peeved that I’m calling you out on how shallow you are and you’re trying to make this about me. Your accusations of “messiah worship” have logical implications and then when I present a reasonable defense, you pretend like you’ve made no accusations worthy of such.

    And I can’t remember the last time I was actually offended by someone I didn’t know well. You can keep trying I suppose. Good luck!

    Perhaps someday you’ll bother telling us what Carrier’s argument from ignorance actually was given the internal coherency of your post was not sufficient to establish it. An argument from ignorance is where someone asserts that because we don’t have evidence it isn’t true, that must mean it is true. You presented only one quote from Carrier that says Ehrman failed to interact with the best of mythicism. So the ignorance would have to be that Carrier thought mythicism must be true because Ehrman didn’t provide an argument against it. Obviously that wasn’t Carrier’s claim at all and I imagine you will never be inclined to own up to your premature value judgment.

    BTW, mythicism could still be false and you would still be a shallow jerk. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. 😉

    1. Ben, I’m not really peeved. I think it’s hilarious. Further, I think that it is a rather homoerotic attempt at getting noticed.

      Okay, since you obviously know what Wiki is, and that is where Carrier’s info comes from, look it up. He assumes that mythicism is a real fact and then wants people to debate it assuming that it is the real position. fallacy.

      Much like your adoration for Carrier… both are phallicies. (Get it?)

  4. “He assumes that mythicism is a real fact and then wants people to debate it assuming that it is the real position.”

    No, that’s just false. And you clearly aren’t even trying.

    1. Thank you for providing actual criticisms of substance and I’m not qualified to respond. I will be bringing them to Carrier’s attention.

      I’m friends with Thom and have been following along his criticisms as well. I’ve even already commented on that post you’ve linked to and agreed with one of Thom’s criticisms:

      It’s interesting that you are linking me to this when this post is about me running an entire website devoted to finding criticisms of Carrier’s work… 😀

Leave a Reply, Please!

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