Richard Carrier Does Not Exist

I declare in no uncertain terms, that I am not a believer in Richard Carrier, I don't think he really exists. You shouldn't expect people to believe in something, unless you've got evidence for it, and so if there is a Richard Carrier, then why has he not shown himself to me? In a way, I can understand the mistake, simple people pick up a handful of writings claiming to be written by Richard Carrier, and since a Richard Carrier seems to be a reasonable account for how these writings came to be, through all the similiarites in the texts and so on, they stick with common sense and fallaciously conclude that this Richard Carrier, whom they have never seen with their own eyes, actually exists. Anybody can write a book or internet article these days, and so someone posing as this imaginary Richard Carrier producing writings claiming to be written by this non-existent figure is an infinitely more likely scenario. Likewise, people claiming to be this so-called Richard Carrier can appear on films claiming to be him, and it would fool most people who lack the critical investigative skills to penetrate this fraud.

Some people have claimed to have even seen this Richard Carrier, if you can believe them. Whilst there are no shortages of liars, the human brain is a very very complicated thing, and so dreaming up an imaginary Richard Carrier would be childsplay for it. If you analyse the writings claiming to be written by this Richard Carrier, then you will notice that they say a lot of very silly things. Apart from finding no evidence whatsoever lurking beneath the paragraphs in the mystical realm of blind faith, you will discover on the hand, a large array of egregious logical and factual errors every page and chapter. Belief in Richard Carrier has been responsible for people flooding the internet with lousy, hideously poor researched articles and books, published by incredibly disreputable publishers and organisations, and copying the so called word of Richard Carrier verbatim. I would certainly call this a dangerous delusion, and so, if there is a Richard Carrier, then he has a lot to answer for. My main objection to the Richard Carrier belief, however, is that people are following a delusional Richard Carrier who is telling them what to believe and what to think, when they should be following me.

I shall now offer a series of irrefutable arguments demonstrating the non-existence of Richard Carrier. First off is the argument from inconsistent revelations. Followers of the Richard Carrier claim that their's is the one true faith, yet what of Richard Dawkinsism, Sam Harrisism, and Christopher Hitchensism? The mere existence of religions expressing belief in other so called atheists, refutes the existence of Richard Carrier. Secondly, is the argument from science. Since Science can explain everything, Science can explain the origins of this Richard Carrier belief and the origins of the so-called word of Richard Carrier, without the need for invoking a discredited and superstitious Carrier of the gaps type hypothesis. Even a child should be able to see that followers of Richard Carrier are merely hallucinating, and that the articles and blogs claiming to be written by Richard Carrier are simply the re-arranged writings of earlier writers, stolen to con people into believing in this so-called Richard Carrier in order to turn the population into snide, arrogant arseholes.

Another argument is the argument from contradictory attributes, and in fact serves to refute the existence of a large number of so-called atheists. Atheists are said to be very intelligent, who value logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence. The writings claiming to be written by Richard Carrier contain a plethora of egregious logical fallacies and factual errors. Therefore, Richard Carrier cannot possibly exist, or, if he does, then he is not the Richard Carrier that Richard Carrierists believe in. The Richard Carrier of scripture is also a stupid, arrogant moron who suffers from the Kruger-Dunning effect. How could somebody possibly believe in such a character? Plus, if Richard Carrier made the books and articles, then who made the Richard Carrier? Invoking the existence of a Richard Carrier therefore serves as no solution to the problem of where did this inane rubbish come from? The main argument to prove the existence of Richard Carrier is also logically fallacious.
1. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.
2. The universe began to exist needs a cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Why is Richard Carrier exempt from this, and if he can be eternal, then why can't the universe be eternal? Ha ha, check mate Richard Carrierists! Why assume the cause is Richard Carrier anyway? Stephen Hawking said that the universe created itself from nothing because of gravity, and Roger Penrose said that the universe is part of a cycle of big bangs and big crunches. Some other guy says that our universe is part of a multiverse, and so our universe appeared from nothing when two D-branes collided! Another guy said that the laws of physics caused the universe to happen because they were so clever! Ha, your fancy Richard Carrierism ain't got no explanation for that! Ignore the fact that none of these have any support from evidence or observation, they are scientists, so they must be right! Also ignore the fact that we still have not arrived at an explanation for the universe that also explains its own existence, but my Arichard Carrierism requires me to adopt an anything but Carrier approach.

Also, ignore the fact that this parody commits a category mistake, putting a human on the same footing as a personal, uncaused cause that exists outside of space-time, but if Richard Carrier can do so, by putting Santa Claus on the same footing as God, then why can't I? Tu quoque, quod erat demonstratum.

Too bad, R, to the I, to the C, to the H, you may be the Richy C, with yo PhD, but I'm comin' ma way onto blogspot, to tell you you ain't hot, and that you are much more stupid than I first thought. You see, this battle's been on, for more than an eon, against guys just like you, who had thought they had won. When in actual fact, they've been pwned blue and black, but don't let them be bothered by that. Richy little C may think he knows all, when he don't y'all, and he is so dull. If I had to take my pick, I'd rather eat sick, or spend an afternoon, with a guy like Duane Gish.

Mike Likona refuted the nonsense he spread, and William Lane Craig busted him oops up side the head. Yet he went on to continue, spouting crap that we knew, has been refuted since before, Bertrand Russell was dead. It looks like Richy C, has topped Dicky D, in hiding the evidence atheists don't want us to see. Nothing more than a moron, as see-through as Zordon, give it to 'em JP, and hit this fool with the chorus!

And then there was Lemaitre, studying Einstein which led him to writing a paper, and even though this showed that the universe began, stupid atheists replied that it was a scam, even though they recanted, they still remained slanted, holding to a worldview, which is insane and ill-fated. Time to open your eyes, and get yourself wise, Christianity will rise to be atheism's demise, and while Richy C cries, crying "why Darwin, why?!", I'll still be poppin' ma collar, as I laugh as you holla.

And if that seems a bit much, Richard Carrier fans, it's just a joke. But, coincidentally... as well as it being a joke, it's also what I actually believe.

Nah, not really. You see, what I was doing there, as all of my regular readers recognise, just in case there is anyone from The Richard Carrier Project reading this, is that I was using an exaggerated form of the rhetoric and implied values of Richard Carrier, to satirise the rhetoric and implied values of Richard Carrier. It is a shame to have to break character and point this out to you, but it should hopefully save you a tedious, dull, lengthy exchange of emails. Although it is doubtful that anything I say can rouse you from your alcohol and porn induced comas.