Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD – A creepy, dishonest hypocrite

In a recent blog post, entitled “Coming Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue”, the esteemed Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, discusses his “coming out” as polyamorous, an “orientation” that he just discovered at the young age of 47.

Per Carrier:

1

He continues:

2

At the end of his piece, he describes his newfound decision to become a swinger as a “sexual orientation”:

3

There is a lot that needs to be said about this.  If all parties in a relationship choose to be polyamorous and are honest with each other about it, it is their own business and is not something that people should pass judgment on.   However, this is clearly not the case with Carrier.  Carrier claims that after 17 years of marriage, he cheated on his wife multiple times, for reasons that he won’t disclose.  In the midst of his infidelity, he suddenly “discovered” (as a middle aged man) that he was polyamorous.  Even though his wife attempted to make the marriage work by allowing him to see other women under the guise of an “open marriage”, Carrier still decided to kick her to the curb.   So in Carrier’s view, his affairs were not a mistake, but rather a fun new “lifestyle choice” that he will pursue, regardless of the past commitment to his wife.

What is even more despicable about Carrier’s behavior toward his wife is the fact that she supported him financially.  In a blog post from a little more than a year ago entitled “Support My Work With Your Christmas Shopping”, Carrier wrote:

4

$15000 a year is poverty level income, especially in the Bay Area, where Carrier resides.  The only reason he has been able to live a comfortable lifestyle while blogging and writing obscure books is due to his wife’s financial support.  The reason that he could afford to invest his time in getting graduate degrees from Columbia in subjects that will never land him a decent paying job is due to the support of his wife.  The reason he was able to travel around the country for low paying speaking engagements instead of having to get a real job is due to his wife’s financial support.  And how does he repay his wife for the support she has given him?  He cheats on her, waits until he is making enough money where he no longer needs her income, and kicks her to the curb.  He even attempts to use her financial support as a reason to rationalize his infidelity.  From the comments of his “Coming Out Poly” post, we find this gem:

5

The worst thing about this situation is about how shameless and unapologetic he is about his actions.  Carrier offers no remorse or regret for what he is done.  He simply strikes it up to a “sexual orientation” that he can’t control.   I haven’t seen such lame excuses for infidelity since Newt Gingrich claimed that he cheated on an ex-wife because he loved his country so much.    Additionally, Carrier constantly hypes his credentials as a feminist ally.  He also goes to great lengths to lecture other atheists about their supposed need to conduct themselves more honesty, ethically, and with more compassion.  Where type of ethics, are demonstrated by someone that uses a spouse for financial support, cheats on her, and kicks her to the curb?  Where is the honesty in how he dealt with her?  His refusal to even acknowledge his wrongdoing and his constant rationalizations show a complete lack of compassion, empathy and integrity.  Despite his books and lectures on secular ethics, it certainly appears that Carrier himself has trouble behaving ethically.

An explanation of strange statements from the past?

Dr. Carrier’s new admission that his libido is as vast as his ego sheds light on previous statements that he has made in his blog.  Carrier portrays himself as a professional academic type, and his blog often consists of verbose discussions of philosophical and historical topics.  However, Carrier has occasionally made creepy posts about bizarre sexual topics that seem out of place for a blog focused on philosophy.   Examples of this include a philosophical discussion regarding gangbangs, a post that briefly discusses the artistic value of “throat-gagging” and “facial cumshots” in pornography, and another post where Carrier laments the lack of response he received from appearing in erotic art (the erotic picture is included in the post for those interested),

Carrier’s recent revelations also help make sense of his previous obsession with talking about sex at atheist conferences, and may provide clues about the behavior of Carrier and the clique that he associates with.  After his admission in the “Coming Out Poly” post that he had been involved in numerous polyamorous relationships.  He also adds the following comment, which indicates that many of his relationships were with people who were also cheating on their spouses:

6

A question that immediately comes to mind is whether Carrier was engaging in this behavior at atheist conferences.  Normally that question would be irrelevant, but Carrier has repeatedly lectured others about their behavior at those same conferences.  If Carrier was condemning others like Michael Shermer for “skirt-chasing” at conferences, then his engaging in that same behavior would be extremely hypocritical.  In light of his recent revelations, a look at his past blog posts indicates a high likelihood that he was engaging in such behavior.

On August 13, 2013, Carrier posted this piece entitled “Our Mythical Campaign against Sex”.  It is notable that this piece was written less than two years ago, which would mean it was written after he claims that he was in an “open marriage” and engaging in polyamorous relationships.  It is also notable that this piece was modified sometime after the posting to reflect his newfound polyamorous status.  I will be using screencaps from the earliest capture on The Wayback Machine.  In this piece, Carrier writes:

7

Carrier is actually claiming here that there is a thriving “swinging” and sex party scene at atheist conferences.  He also claims that the people doing this are his friends and that they are all supports of Atheism +.  He continues:

8

Here he implies that those who dislike Atheism+ do so out of jealousy, because they are not invited to sex parties.  He then continues:

9

Here he claims that he is often invited to those sex parties, but declines because he is “not poly”.  With his current admission that he was cheating on his wife for more than two years, is it possible to believe this claim that he “politely declined”?  It is also notable that this is the section of the post that he later altered, adding [at the time of this writing} after “not poly”.  He then goes on to claim that “swingers” and polyamorous people are somehow more ethical than monogamous people.  This fits Carriers pattern of rationalizing his actions that was demonstrated in his “Coming out Poly” post.  It certainly appears that Carrier may have started rationalizing and downplaying his marital infidelity with that blogpost.   Carrier continues:

10

Here he reiterates his commitment to sex parties at atheist events.  The only caveat that he adds is that he wants people to have their sex parties “ethically”.  Apparently being truthful with his spouse and honoring his marriage vows was not part of the system of ethics that he wished to use.  He then goes on to express his opposition to policies barring conference speakers from having sex with conference attendees.  While this would seem like an odd subject for a married conference speaker to be so concerned about, he devotes a lot of space to address it, and links to other separate articles that he has written on the subject.  Carrier writes:

11

Just like his claim of declining invitations to sex parties, Carrier states that he declined to sleep with students when he was a speaker at SSA events because he was married and not polyamorous.  Despite that, he voiced strong objections to the SSA policy and claimed that the policy itself was unfair and discriminatory to polyamorous speakers.  Of course after his recent revelations, we now know that Carrier had qualms about marital infidelity at the time that this article was written, and he also considered himself “polyamorous: at that time.  Carrier’s statements certainly indicate that it is a possibility that some of his extramarital affairs may have taken place when he was speaking at SSA conferences.  To further paint the picture of rampant hookups between conference speakers and attendees, Carrier links to the following cringe-inducing comments from PZ Myers, where Myers tells of the women who offer themselves sexually at conferences:

12

Carrier’s and Myers’ descriptions make atheist conferences seem like a cross between a swingers convention and a Playboy Mansion party(with less photogenic people).I have never attended (nor do I plan to attend) any atheist conferences), so I have no idea if Carrier’s and Myers’ description of rampant orgies and sex parties is true.  If they are true though, wouldn’t that be a priority issue to address if they were truly concerned about making atheist conferences a more comfortable environment for women?  If this is the type of activity happening at these conferences, why were Carrier and his clique so concerned about one incident where a person asked a person at a convention to coffee in an elevator?

Criticizing others for the same behavior

From Carrier’s own admissions, he has been unfaithful to his wife for many years, and has had numerous extramarital affairs.  Carrier’s past blog posts also indicate that he likely had many of these affairs at atheist conferences.  Furthermore, Carrier claimed the existence of a vibrant “swinger”/sex-party scene at atheist conferences, which he stated his enthusiastic approval of.  Given these statements by Carrier, one would assume that Carrier would have no problem with a speaker who went to conferences and picked up women, even if that speaker was married.  However, that is not the case at all.

On August 22, 2013, (just nine days after posting “Our Mythical Campaign against Sex”), Carrier posted a piece called “Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze?(Unless Box Checked for Other)”.  The piece discussed the extremely dubious rape accusation made on PZ Myers’ blog against Michael Shermer.   In the piece, Carrier attempts to make a pseudointellectual analysis of the “evidence” for this allegation.  Addressing all that is wrong in that piece goes far beyond the scope of this article.  What is relevant is how, in that very article, Carrier chastises Shermer for womanizing, and then implies that extramarital affairs make it more likely that he committed rape.  Carrier writes:

13

Carrier’s hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness are absolutely astounding.  Carrier has admitted to multiple extramarital affairs, and admitted that many of them were with people who were also married.  Furthermore, by his own admission, Carrier was engaging in that behavior at the time that he wrote this article!  Carrier implies that extramarital affairs make a person more likely to be a rapist, but gives no reasoning to support that claim.  Do Carrier’s affairs mean that he is likely to be a rapist as well?  By associating extramarital affairs with rape, was Carrier trying to tell us something about himself?  In the same article, Carrier devotes several paragraphs to criticizing Shermer for picking up women when alcohol was being served and consumed freely.  Perhaps the issue of alcohol consumption is why Carrier feels that his criticisms of Shermer’s behavior would not apply to his own behavior.  Perhaps Carrier only objects to drunken “skirt-chasing”.  The question that should be asked is: does Richard Carrier abstain from alcohol at these events so as to avoid the same situations that Shermer puts himself in? Let’s look at his blog to find out.

Carrier has an entire post devoted to discussing his love of Scotch.   In the same post he discusses the fun of getting extremely drunk, discusses the lack of negative effects of consuming alcohol, and gives his advice for preventing hangovers after consuming large amounts of alcohol.  Carrier also discusses drinking at atheist events and speaking engagements.   Carrier promotes his appearances at numerous “Skeptics in a Pub” type events like this one, where he promises that “Much drinking will ensue”.  He also talks about drinking at atheist conferences, such as in this post where he states “I will of course be speaking and drinking at Skepticon”.  The best insight about his philosophy on drinking at atheist/skeptic events comes from his official website, from the page “Booking Dr. Carrier”:

14

It is obvious that Carrier has no problem with drinking and partying himself at these events.  Why does he apply the double standard to Michael Shermer?

Carrier has also blasted the atheist community as a whole for making women feel uncomfortable at atheist events.  In this piece entitled “On Sexual Harassment”, Carrier writes:

15

He continues:

16

It seems rather odd that a fellow who travels to atheist meetings in order to pick up mistresses, a man that vigorously opposes policies barring speakers from sleeping with attendees, and who describes a conference scene consisting of orgies and BDSM parties (that he enthusiastically approves of!) would be all that concerned about women being made uncomfortable by sexual advances or behavior.  If he was truly concerned with this type of behavior, perhaps he should have start with changing his own behavior, and letting his other polyamorous peers follow his example.

Going against everything he claims to stand for

Carrier often discusses ethics in his philosophy articles, and even in his non-philosophy work, he often uses his platform to lecture others on how they ought to behave.  It appears in the case of his recent “coming out” as polyamorous, Carrier has violated many of the ethical principles that he has preached.  People often make mistakes or simply do things that they know are unethical, so it is not unusual for a person to fail to live up to the ethical standards that they advocate.  In Carrier’s case, the lack of apology and apparent lack of remorse indicates that he may not feel that he done anything unethical at all.   Was Carrier’s behavior unethical by his own standards?

Carrier has stated that it is an objective moral fact that lying is wrong.  He is justified this claim by claiming that society requires trust to build useful social institutions like marriage. From an interview by Daniel Fincke:

17

In a post about Atheism+, Carrier lists compassion and personal integrity as core values.  He writes:

18

19

On his “Booking Dr.Carrier” page, Carrier states that he will not speak at events for organizations that do not endorse the values of compassion and integrity.  He writes:

20

Carrier’s practice of polyamory presents no ethical issues in and of itself.  However, his behavior towards his wife in this situation certainly violates his stated ethical values, particularly those of integrity and compassion.  His extramarital affairs and lying to his wife are an obvious integrity issue, but his refusal to own up to his mistakes or take responsibility for his actions also reflects poorly upon his personal integrity.  He also has shown little compassion.  He did not care that his wife supported him financially, in fact, he use that as a justification for his actions.  Not only did he simply use her financially, but he has humiliated her in a very public fashion through his almost gleeful public announcement of his cheating. These are not the actions of a person who is compassionate.

Carrier claims to be a feminist ally.  If this is the way that he treats a woman who loved him and supported him for 20 years, how is he going to treat his other “allies” and friends?  Richard Carrier has become the Hugo Schwyzer of atheism.

Why would anyone listen to this man?

Dr. Richard Carrier has become an embarrassment to the atheist community.  He has violated the ethical principles that he preaches to others, and worse, he has been completely unapologetic and shameless about his actions.  He has also described his creepy desires to turn atheist events into his own personal swingers clubs.  He has been the ultimate hypocrite, criticizing others for the same behavior that he practices himself.    Carrier is so far gone on his personal ethics that he is in no position to lecture others on how to behave.  Whenever tries to condemn other atheists or tell them how they ought to act, he should be ignored.  Anyone attending events where Dr. Carrier is present would also be well advised to keep him away from their spouse or significant other.

Advertisements

129 thoughts on “Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD – A creepy, dishonest hypocrite

  1. Kirbmarc

    People who claim to be role models are frequently hypocrites. The more inflexible they are in judging others, the more self-righteous and holy theey appear, the more sleazy and self-serving they are.

    Puritanism is last refuge of the scoundrel.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Jacques Cuze

    Well done.

    In “coming out polyamorous” Carrier follows the road trod by many doctors, lawyers, and other successful men and women. Find a partner who will struggle to put you through college and your initial career, and upon reaching some modicum of success, cast them aside and look for a partner or partners more suitable for your later career.

    And yes, it’s almost certain that his affairs were ongoing tours his conference tours.

    I don’t know if polyamory is an orientation, but if so, it certainly is a convenient one. The humblest brag of all the orientations.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. elcoolarrow Post author

      I actually find the “humble-bragging” aspect one of the most despicable parts off this whole affair. After all the ways he had wronged his wife, the least he could have done would have been to v discreetly announce the divorce or offer a public apology for his behavior. Insteas, He had to throw in one final b humiliation of his wife, telling his entire blog audience how he proudly planned to have lots of lovers from now on. Scumbag is not a strong enough word to describe that man.

      Like

      Reply
      1. apologianick

        It’s even worse than that. He’s giving them all permission to write about what happens to him. In other words, Jen can read all about the numerous sexual exploits of a man who abandoned her (In essence saying, you’re not enough for me) and ran off with other women after she helped him achieve the status to get those other women? She was just used entirely. Unfortunately, now she could read many such encounters online and relive that every time.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Dr. Richard Carrier

      There is no evidence of hypocrisy in this article.

      The author justs seems to be annoyed by things they don’t like or understand. Ditto the commenters here.

      Like that I can make a living and support myself on so little money, and doing so by seeking patrons for sustaining my work as an independent scholar and writer.

      And they seem to be fond of making shit up. For example, contrary to their claims, I did indeed turn down sex parties when I said I did, and my wife did indeed open our marriage almost immediately after I wrote that (necessitating, for honesty, a bracketed update). And I did not kick my wife to the curb. She kicked me to the curb. And politely and with full respect for each other and with mutual recognition of it being the best for both of us. This author doesn’t seem to be able to handle that for some reason. Likewise, I’ve repaid my wife’s financial support from past years. In fact an equitable financial separation was precisely what we both wanted and worked together, without lawyers, to produce. So we did.

      This author is also a sexist. Because they fail to account for homemaking as a job and as part of the financial equity in a relationship. I took care of all domestic responsibilities at home for Jen for ten plus years, including cooking for her when she got home from work, laundry, dishes, trash, cleaning, litter, shopping, everything (she had no responsibilities at home in fact). She, not being a sexist like this author here, counts that.

      Another example of their sexism is when they ask why someone who is fine with “orgies and BDSM parties … would be all that concerned about women being made uncomfortable by sexual advances or behavior.” Evidently they don’t know what consent means. Being into BDSM or being promiscuous does not grant anyone license to harass you or make you uncomfortable or assume you are always down for sex. If you don’t know that, then you have a huge ethical failure in your character that you need to address.

      Although in accord with disturbing things this author said like that, they are also a prude with weird hang ups about sex. They can’t handle any healthy talk about sex, sex work, gangbangs, swinging, the phenomena of porn. They declared all such discussion of sex to be creepy and bizarre. That makes them the one with a problem.

      They also suck at reading comprehension. In an article in which I clearly explained the fact that women who get awful harassment for appearing in erotic art while I (a man) do not is evidence of a disturbing sexism in our culture that must be fought against, this author somehow read that as me “lamenting” not getting harassed for appearing in erotic art. Comprehension fail. Of the huge variety.

      Likewise, they say “if Carrier was condemning others like Michael Shermer for “skirt-chasing” at conferences…” evidently unaware that in every instance I have discussed this, I consistently defended that behavior, even explicitly of Shermer. And then made very clear that that is not what he has done that is unethical, and then I explained what he may have done that was (which this author doesn’t seem to know). I have also stated this as general policy. For example, when I discussed what harassment policies should contain, I very publicly joined with Stiefel and others in condemning prohibitions on speakers having sex at events. I have never been inconsistent in this.

      Although that might not be a comprehension fail.

      The evidence is pretty clear in fact that this author is a liar. For they used the same tactics as creationists do, by quote mining, and omitting the very next sentence of the quote. For example, they quote my description of Shermer’s general behavior as if I disapproved of it (and even wax on with speculations about why). Yet in the very post they quote, the very next sentences read:

      “If that were all there were to this story, I would not be troubled by it. Consensual sex, even cheating, is not anyone’s doom. What one does sexually does not (contrary to pop politico psychology) indicate a general dishonesty or unreliability in other matters, or entail you’re a bad person, or make you unlikable or untrustworthy. Or dangerous. Or disgusting. Or any negative stereotype attached to expressions of human sexuality, even the sneaky kind. (This has nothing to do with opposing sex.) What troubles me (and ought to trouble you) are the elements of victimization, exploitation, and insensitivity that are bubbling to the surface in some of the accounts of Shermer’s behavior.”

      There is no way this author can not know these sentences immediately followed the ones they quoted. So their concealing them, and what they said, from their readers makes them a liar.

      So, good luck finding the hypocrisy this article speaks of. It hasn’t presented any. Just made up facts, sexist thoughts and remarks, a disturbing discomfort with sex, a problem with independent artists making a living, and the author’s own propensity to lie about what I’ve said.

      That the commenters here have fallen for it doesn’t reflect well on their critical thinking skills either.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply
      1. shermertron

        Rick,

        Check out the OED definition of “hypocrisy.” That’s you, playa. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/90491?redirectedFrom=hypocrisy#eid

        You assumed a facade of false virtue, telling atheism it had a woman problem…while you were betraying your wife and rocking your way through the sexual buffet that is, apparently, the atheist community.

        You assumed a facade of false virtue, telling everyone that odds were good that Michael Shermer is likely a serial rapist because people say he gets around. Guess what, playa? YOU get around. What does that mean about you?

        You assumed a facade of false virtue, telling people like me who rejected Atheism Plus that we were subhuman CHUDS who hate women when you were potentially exposing your wife and other women and their husbands to potential venereal disease. Were there kids involve in any of these relationships? Did you break up any families? Are there any kids who need to go to two Thanksgivings because you were “finding yourself” in the vaginas of women who weren’t your wife?

        You assumed a facade of false virtue, demanding that people respect the privacy of your ex-wife…while telling everyone on the Internet that you stepped out on her and probably forced her into accepting an “open” relationship and did so after accepting years of financial charity so you could live in an expensive area on fifteen grand a year. You think it’s protecting your ex-wife’s privacy to invite your fuck buddies to share their stories of your sexual prowess? You think you’re protecting your ex-wife when you engage in these self-service exercises? (Not that you know any other kind…)

        Yeti did a great job of making you look like the dishonest hypocrite you are. Will you at least admit that you’ve lost all authority to speak on the matter of morality?

        Feel free to let me know if I got anything wrong in my own posts. https://orwelliangarbage.wordpress.com/tag/richard-carrier/

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Dr. Richard Carrier

        You evidently can’t even read a dictionary. Hypocrisy means judging others by different standards than you live by. This article has failed to present a single example of that. I have always consistently judged others by the same standards I live by (or judge myself by).

        Instead, this author had to lie, by concealing the evidence of that fact (e.g. in the case of my judgments of Shermer) and lying about what my actual statements and thoughts about that were. They are a liar. That is a documented fact. Unlike this supposed hypocrisy of mine that they and you have failed to find any evidence of.

        You yourself lied in this very comment, claiming I told “everyone that odds were good that Michael Shermer is likely a serial rapist because people say he gets around” when in fact I never said any such thing. Maybe you bought this article’s lie about that, and didn’t read the original article? Or are you a liar like them?

        You even lied repeatedly by claiming I put on a facade of false virtue, when in fact neither you nor they have found a single instance of my claiming to be morally perfect. I only have ideals. Which I have openly and honestly admitted to trying hard to live up to. And when I fail, I have judged myself the same as I judged anyone else who did the same thing. Including Shermer. Indeed, in that very section following the one this article quoted which they deceitfully left out and pretended didn’t exist. (Remember Yeti is a liar? And I caught them at it?)

        You lie again when you claim I said people “who rejected Atheism Plus” were “subhuman CHUDS who hate women.” I never said any such thing. I said atheist men who harass women in our movement and say vile things about them are subhuman CHUDS who hate women, and that Atheism Plus was about calling them out on that (as well as other things). Saying otherwise makes you a liar.

        You lied again when you claim I wasn’t having safe sex.

        You also engage the leading question fallacy by implying I did a bunch of other things you have no evidence of. (Everyone here evidently has a real problem with the concept of evidence.)

        You are also unable to understand the difference between revealing my wife’s secrets, and honestly speaking about my own life. Those are not the same thing.

        You also continue to repeat your sexist assumptions about homemaking, and Yeti’s lies about our divorce not being financially equitable.

        You also show your own disturbing prudery by not only thinking I asked my lovers to boast about my sexual prowess, but also by having a problem with a woman wanting to talk honestly about their lover’s sexual prowess. Evidently you have some weird obsession with my sexual prowess. And some weird sexist hangup with women talking publicly about their lovers. And on top of that, a sexist inability to tell the difference between talking about your relationship with someone, and talking about how you have sex with them. You weirdly (and disturbingly) just assumed they are the same thing.

        I’ve been entirely consistent in all my discussions of morality, and what is and isn’t actually moral, and how much so, and why. And I’ve been entirely consistent in how I have judged people and why, and how I have judged myself and why. And still no evidence to the contrary has been presented.

        You and Yeti, on the other hand, are confirmed liars.

        That kind of wins this argument for me.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. shermertron

        I am responding to the first post in the thread because there is no “reply” button under your last response.

        My full response with links and images, etc. can be found at: https://orwelliangarbage.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/dr-richard-carrier-phd-can-read-many-languages-but-english-isnt-one-of-them/

        You are trying to weasel out of any criticism by claiming he has been quote mined, even though The Yeti and I have been extremely vigilant in including links to all of your statements. You are lithe, but not lithe enough to slip out of reasonable interpretations of your own words.

        You start off by saying:

        “You evidently can’t even read a dictionary. Hypocrisy means judging others by different standards than you live by. This article has failed to present a single example of that. I have always consistently judged others by the same standards I live by (or judge myself by).”

        I included the OED definition of “hypocrisy.”
        And I listed a few of the many ways in which you have acted in a manner consistent with this definition. In brief:

        Telling men to stop being rapey and creepy around women while cheating and banging under the false pretense of infidelity.
        Attempting to gain SJW victim points by “coming out poly” to conceal his moral failings.
        Presenting himself as the moral exemplar of Atheism Plus literally in the same period he was banging women who weren’t your wife.

        “Instead, this author had to lie, by concealing the evidence of that fact (e.g. in the case of my judgments of Shermer) and lying about what my actual statements and thoughts about that were. They are a liar. That is a documented fact. Unlike this supposed hypocrisy of mine that they and you have failed to find any evidence of.”

        Why won’t you refer to Yeti by nym? “This author” seems clinical! The reader has been given more than enough information to make their own decision as to whether you are guilty of your hypocrisy.

        But I do appreciate that you are continuing the misogynist policy of “deny ’til you die.” Caught in bed with your wife’s sister? Deny ’til you die. It wasn’t me. You’re going to believe your lying eyes?

        “You yourself lied in this very comment, claiming I told “everyone that odds were good that Michael Shermer is likely a serial rapist because people say he gets around” when in fact I never said any such thing. Maybe you bought this article’s lie about that, and didn’t read the original article? Or are you a liar like them?”

        You accuse me of lying. Dude. Your 7400-word article does indeed say that Shermer is likely a serial rapist because people say he gets around. Let’s go to the Word of Our Carrier, which I have linked in my posts.

        Your article preserved by a third party: https://archive.today/Si3hp

        You literally use percentages and probability (THE ODDS) to indicate that Shermer is a rapist on the basis of hearsay that he has “lots of consensual trysts and affairs.” (BECAUSE HE GETS AROUND.)

        Oh, and don’t forget that while you wrote this, you may have had stank on your fingers from a woman who wasn’t YOUR wife, but WAS someone else’s. (Feel free to confirm or deny the hypothetical.)

        You say the following:

        “You even lied repeatedly by claiming I put on a facade of false virtue, when in fact neither you nor they have found a single instance of my claiming to be morally perfect. I only have ideals. Which I have openly and honestly admitted to trying hard to live up to. And when I fail, I have judged myself the same as I judged anyone else who did the same thing. Including Shermer. Indeed, in that very section following the one this article quoted which they deceitfully left out and pretended didn’t exist. (Remember Yeti is a liar? And I caught them at it?)”

        Wow, way to move the goalpost! No one said you claimed to be “morally perfect.” Are you really denying that you, as Yeti and I have pointed out, set yourself up as the moral exemplar of atheism and told us what we should do and how we should treat people?

        You did NOT judge yourself as you did Shermer. You added to the witch hunt that labeled him a rapist. In your self-aggrandizing humblebrags about the pussy you pull in, you didn’t apologize to your wife. You didn’t apologize for contributing to the atmosphere that you’ve been fighting (that atheist conferences shouldn’t be perceived as misogynist fucksuckfests). You didn’t criticize yourself for possibly splitting families. No. You asked for understanding about your newfound “orientation.” A guy in his mid-40s wants to fuck a lot of women without consequence. What a mind-blowing revelation. I hope you find a good support group so you can come to terms with being so different from everyone else.

        Check out your incredibly stupid post: https://archive.today/1GvWh

        You say:

        “You lie again when you claim I said people “who rejected Atheism Plus” were “subhuman CHUDS who hate women.” I never said any such thing. I said atheist men who harass women in our movement and say vile things about them are subhuman CHUDS who hate women, and that Atheism Plus was about calling them out on that (as well as other things). Saying otherwise makes you a liar.”
        carrier8

        I’m not down with AtheismPlus. I am therefore dead weight and a CHUD (subhuman by definition) and I live in a sewer and I must be disowned. You link to two Skepchick articles about misogyny.

        Goddamn.

        You said:

        “You lied again when you claim I wasn’t having safe sex.”

        Absolutely untrue. I have always quite rightly asserted that you potentially exposed your wife and your fuckbuddies to venereal diseases. See that word “potential?” That’s what people like you and PZ don’t understand: words like “alleged.” You and PZ didn’t use “alleged” with Shermer or Krauss or your other targets.

        I treat you better than you treat others because I’m a decent human being.

        I have no idea whether or not you have always used protection when banging. There is absolutely no denying, however, that sexual activity of any kind exposes the participants to the risk, no matter how large or small, of contracting STDs. Here’s a Beyesian analysis of the risks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19880971

        You said:

        “You also engage the leading question fallacy by implying I did a bunch of other things you have no evidence of. (Everyone here evidently has a real problem with the concept of evidence.)”

        In spite of your mangrove-like prose, you don’t manage to offer specifics. I am not implying you left children with a broken home. You have not been honest enough for us to know. You admit to fucking married women. The majority of women in your age range have children. It’s a reasonable conjecture that fucking their mother may have caused some problems in the family.

        You said:

        “You are also unable to understand the difference between revealing my wife’s secrets, and honestly speaking about my own life. Those are not the same thing.”

        Genius, if you gave a shit about your wife’s privacy, you wouldn’t have said a goddamn thing at all. No one cared about your marital status. No one cares who you bang outside of your staggering hypocrisy, Mr. Intellectual-Artillery-of-Atheism-Plus. You told everyone, of your own accord, that your wife wasn’t enough to keep the great and powerful Richard Carrier. Like PZ Myers and Lousy Canuck, you allegedly mistreated a woman then you leave the public with ONLY YOUR ACCOUNT.

        You said:

        “You also continue to repeat your sexist assumptions about homemaking, and Yeti’s lies about our divorce not being financially equitable.”

        “Homemaking?” You’re both grown able-bodied adults. Stop trying to make yourself out to be a hero because you filled the soap dispensers.

        You are using the word “lies” a lot even though we’re all just working off of the information that you provide. If you feel Yeti is wrong, why not clarify? Do you get alimony from your wife? Did you feel a bit scummy while negotiating for stuff from the woman who paid your way while you were banging strange and calling it a journey into yourself?

        You said:

        “You also show your own disturbing prudery by not only thinking I asked my lovers to boast about my sexual prowess, but also by having a problem with a woman wanting to talk honestly about their lover’s sexual prowess. Evidently you have some weird obsession with my sexual prowess. And some weird sexist hangup with women talking publicly about their lovers. And on top of that, a sexist inability to tell the difference between talking about your relationship with someone, and talking about how you have sex with them. You weirdly (and disturbingly) just assumed they are the same thing.”

        What is the point of inviting your lovers to come forward in the first place? You still don’t get it: ASIDE FROM YOUR OBVIOUS HYPOCRISY AND THE FACT THAT YOU WERE MOWING OTHER MENS’ LAWNS, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK WHO YOU FUCK.

        You, the moral center of Atheism Plus, seem to be making your romantic relationships, sexual and otherwise, part of your work in atheism. Your Atheism Plus kickoff video makes it clear that you think the atheist community is pushing women away in part because of sexual harassment. You don’t think that parading around like a peacock and pointing out the notches on your bedposts contributes to the atmosphere you condemn?

        You said:

        “I’ve been entirely consistent in all my discussions of morality, and what is and isn’t actually moral, and how much so, and why. And I’ve been entirely consistent in how I have judged people and why, and how I have judged myself and why. And still no evidence to the contrary has been presented.”

        You can say that as many times as you like, but you keep sounding like a child hiding his eyes and trying to convince himself that his mommy isn’t out spending time with that curly-haired man who showed up when daddy was gone.

        (Reminder: look at how you treated Shermer. Look at how you treated yourself. Pleeeeeeeeeeease.)

        You said:

        “You and Yeti, on the other hand, are confirmed liars.”

        Confirmed by whom? You? Your reputation’s in the shitter right now, playa.

        “That kind of wins this argument for me.”

        I can’t wait for the good people at Richard Carrier Wiki to report that you’ve won yet another rhetorical battle. It must feel good to be respected by so many people who aren’t you.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. OffensiveHole

        Dr “Dick” Carrier: ” I took care of all domestic responsibilities at home for Jen for ten plus years, including cooking for her when she got home from work, laundry, dishes, trash, cleaning, litter, shopping, everything (she had no responsibilities at home in fact). She, not being a sexist like this author here, counts that.”

        Im just going to quote my old school feminist wife on this one — “I understand the role of a stay-at-home mother, but WTF is a stay-at-home wife?”

        Like

      5. elcoolarrow Post author

        Hello, Dr. Carrier. This is not FTB, so I welcome your response. I have been busy lately with a personal situation, so I have not had time to address your comments until now. In an effort to save time and keep the comments readable for the readers of my blog I will not do a point by point fisking of your response. However, I will try to address all major points as well as the baseless accusations that you have made against me.

        You start off by saying that I am annoyed at things that I don’t understand. That is not the case at all. The entire reason that I wrote this is because I detest your hypocrisy. You position yourself as a moral authority of atheism, and you are more than happy to smear other atheists who disagree with you. It is always fun to take down a sanctimonious hypocrite, and that is what you have become. I also said nothing negative about you being an “independent scholar”.

        As to you accusing me of making shit up, that claim is obviously false to any reader of my article. I have based my entire analysis on things that you have written in your blog and elsewhere. I have thoroughly documented all of the statements with links and screencaptures (I will address your separate claim of quote-mining shortly). Regarding your divorce, I based everything I said upon your statements in your blog. Even if she was the one that finally decided to end things, if you demanded her to accept an “open marriage” it would appear that you forced her hand on the issue. Certainly you have handled your situation in an unusual manner that makes you look pretty bad. To the reader, it appears that you are “humble-bragging” about your sexual exploits, and you are celebrating your infidelity as “turning over a new leaf”. You certainly haven’t apologized to your wife for your actions. There was also no requirement for you to air your dirty laundry out on your blog like that, and your doing so does not indicate that you have much respect for your ex-wife. It appears that your urge to stroke your own ego trumps your desire to treat your wife with respect in the handling of a situation that you caused. As to whether or not you turned down invitations to specific sex parties, I only brought up what you have written in your own blog. The time that you wrote that post falls within the timeframe during which you later claimed that you were cheating on your wife. The fact that you edited the post after the fact certainly appears suspicious,

        People in your clique are normally quick to throw out claims of misogyny and sexism when they are losing an arguments. Your attempts to smear me as “sexist” are false and nonsensical. You first claim that I am a “sexist” for not recognizing the value of your domestic work. It is interesting to note that you are actually accusing me of sexism against men. Regardless, your claim falls flat. Nowhere did I say that there was no value in domestic labor. Certainly in a case like yours, where there are no children, the value of such domestic labor is far less than that of a stay-at-home mom or dad. Regardless, in my piece that you are responding to, I never disparaged someone being a homemaker. What I did point out is that your wife’s support has enabled to earn advanced degrees from an elite university in subject’s that offer few good job prospects. I also pointed out that her financially support enabled you to pursue a career as an independent scholar doing what you want to do, instead of having to get a job that pays enough to cover your living expenses. Her years of support enabled you to become a paid speaker at atheist conferences, you know, the ones where you claim to receive constant invitations to sex parties. I simply pointed out how fucked up it is that you ignored your marriage vows, didn’t apologize, and gleefully blogged about it despite all of the support that was given to you. There is nothing sexist about me criticizing your behavior. As to your behavior that I criticized, I don’t think it makes you a sexist- just an asshole.

        Your second claim about sexism is also utter nonsense. I never mentioned non-consensual sexual behavior anywhere in my post, nor did I ever accuse you of such. I certainly have never advocated such behavior. Are you really claiming that only non-consensual sexual behavior can make women uncomfortable? That would seem to be an odd claim coming from a member of the group that made a huge ruckus about a certain person being asked to coffee in an elevator. People have different expectations going in to different types of events. People attending a swingers convention or a Cancun spring break party are going to expect far different things than people attending an atheist conference to see your presentation on the historicity of Jesus. I have never been to an atheist conference, but your description of atheism events, if accurate would definitely appear to be an unwelcoming environment for women who were attnding for purposes other than partying or hooking up. You still never explained what is sexist about me stating any of this.

        I am not a prude, nor do I have problems with consenting adults having whatever kind of sex that they like. As I alluded to earlier, context matters in regards to when things are appropriate. You don’t write a sex -advice column like Dan Savage, you write a blog where you normally posts verbose, somewhat scholarly articles about topics of philosophy and history. So yes, it does seem to come off as rather odd that you have posts on your blog about God enjoying gangbangs or about how often there are swinger and BDSM parties at atheist conferences. In light of your recent statements that seem to indicate that you were using these conferences to hook up with any women that you could, it does seem to be a little creepy. It also makes your multiple post about conference policies seem very, very self-serving.

        As to your “lamenting” lack of negative attention for your “erotic art”- the attention seeking move of posting that picture in the blog article sure seems to indicate that was the case. It seems to fit into an overall pattern of narcissism and attention-seeking on your part.

        Now I would like to address your allegation of quote-mining. Quote-mining normally refers to the practice of citing an author out-of context in order to misrepresent what they were saying. The article that I cited was extremely verbose and ran more than 7000 words. I linked to the entire article, and even explained that addressing the entire article was beyond the scope of my post. Did the words I cited misrepresent what you said in the article? Absolutely not. In that article, you made the argument that Michael Shermer could be proven guilty of rape via preponderance of the evidence (the standard in American civil court cases). You presented the stories of Shermer’s womanizing as “evidence” that he was guilty of rape. Your conclusion in the article was that Shermer is a bad person that women should avoid for their own safety. The only other “evidence” you presented in the article was the fact that he liked to drink alcohol with women at conferences (I addressed your hypocrisy on this issue as well). While you did write that passage that you cited above, it contradicted pretty much everything else you wrote in that article, as well as your conclusions. You stated that normally cheating or sexual promiscuity isn’t troubling, then spent the rest of the article arguing how in Shermer’s case it was. Your claim that you defended his “skirt-chasing” is a bald-face lie; the fact is that you used that as evidence to claim that he was a rapist! The only way to misrepresent your article would be to cite the statement that you cited in your above comment. in essence, in your attempt to accuse me of quote-mining, you have quote-mined yourself. I invite any of my readers to follow the link to his article and decide for themselves if I represented his position accurately.

        Finally, point out that you never addressed the latter part of my article where I presented your own stated ethical principles that you have so shamelessly violated. I am curious as to when you plan on purging yourself from the atheist community due to your lack of personal integrity.

        The dishonesty you have shown in your reply here has simply eroded your credibility even further. Keep digging, Doc.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. franc

        Tricky Dicky Carrier: //You evidently can’t even read a dictionary. Hypocrisy means judging others by different standards than you live by. This article has failed to present a single example of that. I have always consistently judged others by the same standards I live by (or judge myself by).//

        I’ll tell you what hypocrisy is –

        * It’s claiming to be ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ and coming out with rants like this –

        “There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all […] to start a blog series building a system of shared values that separates the light side of the force from the dark side within the atheism movement, so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst, and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.”

        You can almost hear the jackboots squeaking and Wagner in the background.

        * It’s also blogging at freefromthought blogs and preaching sexual anarchism – when peezee, becky and cohorts have been on a moral panic crusade to restore fear, shame and guilt to sex, as well as reestablishing females’ innate helplessness, purity, innocence, naiveté and frailty, with a zealotry that makes the Victorian British seem enlightened.

        And the pièce de résistance, quote you –

        * “You and Yeti, on the other hand, are confirmed liars.”

        Makes one duck for cover to avoid exploding pot and kettle shrapnel. Freefromthought blogs is the vilest pit of pernicious and vicious nonsense, smear and evidence free accusations of criminality, a cesspit of pure malicious vandals, easily the most disgraceful sewer of human corruption and malfeasance the godless world has ever produced – and you question Shermetron’s and Yeti’s honesty and integrity?

        Positively thigh slapping. You are the FfTB clown prince Dick.

        Like

      7. Dr. Richard Carrier

        You really haven’t demonstrated anything here. Your sexism remains as identified.

        For example, you continue to persistently devalue the housework I contributed to our marriage. Devaluing what society deems “women’s work” is sexism because it (a) reflects the sexist prejudice that what is deemed “women’s work” is of no value and (b) it belittles men who take what society deems to be the role of a women. Those are sexist attitudes about women. That they also hurt men is precisely what feminists have been pointing out for years.

        If we calculated what you would actually have to pay for a full-time live-in maid, pet sitter, personal chef, personal shopper, and driver (as well as part time services in carpentry, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, and other household work, all of which I did) for over ten years, your notion that it wouldn’t add up to much only reinforces how sexist you are. That you still don’t get it just shows how blind to that you are.

        You have also failed to defend yourself against quote mining.

        Quote miners often cite the source of their quote. And then omit the context that proves their deception. That’s what quote mining is. So you can’t claim you didn’t quote mine because you cited your source. Quote mining is what you do with that source. And this is what you did: you engaged in a bunch of fake speculation about why I disapproved of Shermer’s behavior, even though the paragraph in which I explicitly said why I did, you completely hid from your readers, even though it completely refutes and contradicts all your speculations (a fact you cannot have been ignorant of, hence you were lying), and also directly contradicts your claim that what I disapproved of were the things I listed in the one part you did quote, even though in your source I immediately went on to explicitly state that I did not disapprove of those things. So by concealing that from your readers, you engaged in a classic, textbook example of quote mining, and did so in order to lie about what I said. And you were caught. You are a liar.

        You even lie yet again here by claiming that I didn’t present or link to evidence of the things I said I did disapprove of–none of which were the things you claimed I said. I certainly did reference or link to that other evidence. And here you lie and claim I didn’t.

        You lie even yet again by claiming those things in that paragraph you quote mined are what I spent “the rest of the article arguing” are what Shermer did wrong. Holy fucking shit man. That is an astonishing and appalling lie. One that completely erases a likely rape victim’s testimony and story. The rest of the article was about that…not “skirt chasing,” but something entirely different, very specific, and analyzed in detail, even including the possibility that it didn’t amount to a legal definition of rape, that even that incident’s best case scenario looks horrible. To completely erase a victim’s narrative, a victim who is a woman, is possibly the most sexist thing you’ve yet said here.

        And that’s it. That’s all you’ve managed to say. More lies. More sexism. More repeating of unfounded claims.

        Indeed throughout this reply of yours now you merely just repeated your original claims, and don’t even address my demonstration of their factual inaccuracy, dishonesty, or lack of evidence. That establishes you have no argument.

        You still have yet to present any example of actual hypocrisy. Since I’ve asked for that evidence multiple times now and you repeatedly fail to present it, I consider this conversation over. It’s clear now that you have nothing substantive to say.

        Liked by 2 people

      8. elcoolarrow Post author

        A couple things:
        regarding my “sexism”. Once again, you demonstrate how totally and utterly dishonest you are. I never once said ANYTHING devaluing domestic work. Not fucking once. I also never said anything about housework being “women’s work”. You have gone beyond just strawmanning my position; you are just making shit up that I never said. What I did say is that your wife’s financial support helped you in numerous ways, and it is quite fucked up how you are treating her in light of that. The fact that you can’t even acknowledge her contributions reveals quite a lot about your character ,and it makes you look like quite the asshole. The only one in this conversation that is devaluing the contributions of a woman is you.

        Regarding the supposed quotemining; quotemining entails a misrepresentation of your position. I did no such thing. In your rambling, you used Shermer’s womanizing as evidence that the rape allegation was true. You even tried to couch it in legal terms, framing his womanizing as part of the “preponderance of evidence” of Shermer’s guilt. You presented a bunch of hypothetical scenarios in the piece, but the only actual factual evidence that you presented was that Shermer was a known womanizer, and that Shermer was known to drink alcohol with the women that he hooked up with. Everything else was speculation, in the form of “if Shermer did x, that is wrong because…”. You presented the womanizing as part of the “evidence” that the allegations against him were true. As I said before, I invite my readers to follow the link to your article and decide for themselves.

        You still haven’t even bothered to address the violations of your stated ethical principles that I discussed in my post. It is notable that throughout this entire conversation, you have never once been able to admit that you did anything wrong in the entire situation. People fail to live up to their own moral standards all the time, what is unique in your case is that you won’t even acknowledge that you did anything wrong. It is quite a poor reflection on your character and integrity.

        On a final note, you are always welcome to post a rebuttal or defense in the comments of my blog. In case you are done for good, I would like to ask one final question while you are here. In 2011 (refer to ) you mentioned that you had solved one of the greatest problems in science and reconciled quantum mechanics with general relativity. Do you have any updates on this? Are you expecting a Nobel prize in the near future?

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Dr. Richard Carrier

        Shermertron, you have also added nothing to the debate here. You fail to respond to any of my actual evidence and arguments, and fail still to find any actual evidence of my hypocrisy.

        Indeed, I have to conclude you continue to fail to understand what the word hypocrisy means.

        For example:

        (1) “Telling men to stop being rapey and creepy around women while cheating and banging under the false pretense of infidelity” is not hypocrisy, because those two things aren’t the same thing. Hence I wasn’t judging anyone by any different standard than I judged myself. I even explicitly said Shermer’s cheating was not a significant matter. If you can’t tell the difference between consent and the lack of consent in sexual pursuits, you have a serious problem in yourself that you need to attend to.

        Likewise, having “stank on your fingers” from consensual sex while writing against nonconsensual sex is also not an example of hypocrisy. Again, you seem incapable of telling the difference between consensual sex and nonconsensual sex. That’s disturbing.

        (2) I did not conceal my moral failings. I actually honestly admitted them. (Obviously. As otherwise you would not know of them.) I have never treated anyone who has admitted similar moral failings any differently than I treat myself in the matter. Indeed I have consistently judged infidelity the same way, even Shermer’s (a fact Yeti concealed from his readers by omitting that part of his quote of my article about Shermer). That’s the exact opposite of hypocrisy. Whereas what Yeti did is a far worse form of lying. Your values are exactly the opposite of mine: lies about public facts that openly deceive the public in an attempt to defame a public figure is far worse than concealing discreet affairs from your spouse. You inexplicably think it’s the other way around. But since I’ve always consistently expressed these values as the exact opposite of yours, this is not evidence of my hypocrisy, but exactly the reverse.

        (Ironically, you are the one using the deny til you die strategy, not me. All my behavior I’ve completely owned up to. Whereas I caught Yeti lying. Unmistakably. Clearly. Yet he won’t own it, and you keep just denying it. Ignoring the slam dunk evidence entirely.)

        (3) I never “use percentages and probability (THE ODDS) to indicate that Shermer is a rapist on the basis of hearsay that he has “lots of consensual trysts and affairs.” (BECAUSE HE GETS AROUND.)” And you fail to show any evidence that I did. Maybe you are still being duped by Yeti’s quotemining lie, but the part where I use that evidence for a probability is not the probability he raped someone, but against “His recent attempt to compel PZ Myers to retract his report of what a witness told him appeared to deny even this (that Shermer has lots of consensual trysts and affairs).” I then immediately explain why I don’t think this affects the probability of his being a rapist at all. I only discuss the probability of that elsewhere in the article. So in fact that article says the exact opposite of what you claim. So either you are also lying, or you remain a dupe of Yeti’s deception.

        (4) In point of fact, by claiming I am a hypocrite because I occasionally fail at morality, which is all you seem capable of doing, can only be hypocrisy if I claimed to be morally perfect. So you can either choose to admit you botched your argument by confusing moral failure with hypocrisy, or to admit you were implying I had claimed to be morally perfect. Choose the sword you now fall on.

        Weirdly, you then immediately claim I claimed to be morally perfect! (A “moral exemplar”), in the same place you deny claiming I claimed to be morally perfect! The bravado of that astonishes. So one of those two claims is a lie. Pick which. Meanwhile, I really hope you aren’t so immature as not to know that how one handles moral failure can also exemplify one’s moral ideals. And if one is consistent in that, that is the opposite of being a hypocrite.

        (5) Your statement that “You did NOT judge yourself as you did Shermer” because “You added to the witch hunt that labeled him a rapist” would only be an example of hypocrisy if a woman was claiming I raped her and with the same scale of supporting evidence. Since that hasn’t happened, you have no hypocrisy to identify here. If you can’t tell the difference between my treating Shermer’s infidelities by the same standard as I treat mine, and a credible rape accusation with significant corroboration, that blows my mind.

        (6) You seem to be obsessed and disturbed with how many girlfriends I have, and how honestly and openly I speak about my sex and romantic life. That means there is something wrong with you. But it doesn’t, again, evince any hypocrisy of mine.

        (7) Your referring to my lovers as “pussy” is sexist and demeaning to women in general, and those women in particular.

        (8) “You didn’t apologize for contributing to the atmosphere that you’ve been fighting (that atheist conferences shouldn’t be perceived as misogynist fucksuckfests)” is because I have nothing to apologize for. I’ve been entirely consistent in my values on that subject. So where is the hypocrisy here? That you find my values annoying does not make me a hypocrite. It might make you an awful person, but that has nothing to do with me.

        (9) “You didn’t criticize yourself for possibly splitting families.” Where is the evidence that I split families? (And why do you assume families should never split?) Making a baseless claim, and attaching to it a ridiculous Christian premise against the utility of divorce, might make you look foolish, but it doesn’t evince any hypocrisy of mine.

        (10) If you think polyamory is about fucking women without consequence, then you don’t know what the ethically means in “ethically non-monogamous.” That might make you a bigot. But it again evinces no hypocrisy of mine.

        (11) I caught you lying about what I said were CHUDS. And like a cat who hits a glass window and pretends that never happened, you just ignore all of what I said here in this thread about that, assume I said exactly the opposite of what I actually said to you about that, and then invent a false connection between who I called CHUDS, and yourself. That is just bizarre. It’s also lying.

        (12) “I have always quite rightly asserted that you potentially exposed your wife and your fuckbuddies to venereal diseases” is a fallacy: to illustrate, I will now present the same kind of argument: You are possibly a neo-nazi child molesting serial killer. That statement is equally true. And yet you would be right to respond by saying I have no evidence any of those things is true of you. Just as I did. Imagine I then responded to your perfectly legit rebuttal the way you just did to mine. That’s you, in the mirror. Not a pretty picture, is it?

        (You also aren’t a very good thinker. You love to speculate and draw inferences from pure speculations as if they were then facts, yet you don’t say that maybe my wife and I didn’t have sex with each other or couldn’t, therefore the probability of my giving her an STD was zero. Or that I always tested myself before having sex with her. Or that she was also fooling around and thus she could just as easily have exposed me to STDs. Those are each as likely a speculation as any of your others. And the probabilities being equal, they cancel each other out. That’s the cost of basing arguments on zero evidence.)

        (13) “If you gave a shit about your wife’s privacy, you wouldn’t have said a goddamn thing at all” is not how privacy works. You don’t lose the right to own your own identity and to tell the truth about your own life, when you agree to keep the secrets of others. And again, I have always been consistent about that. So there’s no evidence of hypocrisy here, either.

        (14) To engage the fallacy of hyperbole (in your world, all housekeepers and personal chefs do is change soap in soap dispensers!) to denigrate the financial value of homemaking is a textbook straw man. I never said my homemaking made me a hero, I said it had measurable financial value in our marriage, a fact with which my wife agrees. Yet you mock and denigrate that. Again. That’s sexist. And if you don’t know why, see what I said about why it is upthread.

        We added up all our contributions to our marriage over its whole span and decided, like sensible and compassionate adults, what division of remaining assets and responsibilities would be fair. You can whine all you want to, but you have no evidence to the contrary. So you have no evidence of hypocrisy here either. Again.

        (15) That you now say “what is the point of inviting your lovers to come forward in the first place?” [other than to give reports of my sexual prowess] only proves exactly what I said about you: you can’t even conceive of a relationship being anything other than a collection of sex positions. Thus, you can’t even imagine what else my lovers would want to talk about. Or that being open just about the fact of being in a relationship with me might be something they would want and like. Or that they might want to talk about how I treated them. Or why they like me. Or don’t like me. Or both. These things you can’t even imagine. Which suggests to me that you have a hard time seeing women as people, with their own thoughts and feelings and desires and lives and relationships they’d like to talk about. It looks like all you see is fuck-objects who couldn’t possibly have anything else to talk about when talking about their boyfriends.

        (16) “You don’t think that parading around like a peacock and pointing out the notches on your bedposts contributes to the atmosphere you condemn?” No. Because as I have consistently said for years (Yeti even quotes my sex positive article demonstrating this), abundant and healthy sex lives for everyone, even at cons (as American Atheists said, they want people to have sex at their conferences!) is not what we have ever been against or would ever be against; that in fact, having such a community makes us more welcoming, not less, and more respecting of women’s autonomy, not less. You might have a hard time telling the difference between that, and harassment and abuse and mistreatment and violating consent. But if so, that says something very disturbing about you. It evinces no hypocrisy of mine.

        And that’s it. That’s all you present. As I’ve shown, you don’t even seem to know what hypocrisy is. You certainly have evinced no evidence of my engaging in any.

        And since you’ve had multiple opportunities to do so, I am concluding arguing with you further is a waste of time. I’m content to leave the record now here as it is. When people read what I’ve said, and compare it to what you’ve said, only the delusional won’t see the truth of this matter. And since the delusional could never be persuaded anyway, that’s the best outcome I could want.

        Good luck stewing in your lies and prejudices.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Steersman

        elcoolarrow:

        Now I would like to address your allegation of quote-mining …. In that article, you made the argument that Michael Shermer could be proven guilty of rape via preponderance of the evidence (the standard in American civil court cases). You presented the stories of Shermer’s womanizing as “evidence” that he was guilty of rape. Your conclusion in the article was that Shermer is a bad person that women should avoid for their own safety. The only other “evidence” you presented in the article was the fact that he liked to drink alcohol with women at conferences (I addressed your hypocrisy on this issue as well). …. I invite any of my readers to follow the link to his article and decide for themselves if I represented his position accurately.

        While I think you done good investigative work by detailing Avicenna’s many “crimes and misdemeanors”, and while I too have any number of criticism’s of Dr. Carrier’s arguments and positions, I kind of get the impression that you and Shermertron, among others, are engaged in a bit of a hatchet-job of him. Although I’ll readily concede that his position seems rather diametrically opposed to many in the FTB camp who, if I’m not mistaken, have been as quiet as the proverbial church mouses on these latest “revelations”.

        But specifically, relative to the issue of quote-mining, (as I don’t have the spoons to do more, so to speak), and has he recently said and emphasized in his comment above, there’s some justification for arguing that your position is “One that completely erases a likely rape victim’s testimony and story”. As Carrier put it that that post of his that you linked to:

        What she said was “Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me.” And her only reason for having this accusation made public was “to share this story in case it helps anyone else ward off a similar situation from happening.” Because she was hearing similar stories from many other women involving Shermer.

        In the face of that evidence, it seems a bit of a stretch for you to suggest that Carrier was relying only on the claim that Shermer “liked to drink alcohol with women at conferences” as evidence that that “[Shermer] was guilty of rape”. But while one might quibble about the details and the credibility of that position – notably that the accusation wasn’t tantamount to defamation, and that the tale was maybe fabricated or embellished – I think Carrier’s magnum opus on the issue (of many) gives some justification for thinking that maybe the woman in question was actually victimized. Which, I might point out, seems rather notably different from Carrier’s case since, as far as I know, no one – neither his putative partners nor his wife – has (yet …) come forward to claim that he has victimized them. Not really comparing apples with apples, and seems not particularly credible to suggest the cases are analogous.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. Michael

        God has clearly given you over to your sin; IF you can repent, you should before you’re reprobated. You are the first person I’m aware of to make adultry an “orientation”, it’s quite amusing because if you can’t be trusted in relationships, how can you be trusted with anything else? You have values? I think it’s obvious you’re bankrupt there too. The God you spend so much time denying has no room for “consenting adults”, unless you repent, you will likewise perish. Lastly, your narcissism is astounding, you left your wife because you have this self-image of being some kind of rockstar, quite the fragile ego I would say; methinks the only thing that will earn your attention is disease, let’s hope it does’nt come to this.

        Like

      12. shermertron

        It has recently come to my attention that saying something a number of times makes it true. Ladies, gentlemen and other, I’m dating 24-year-old Elisha Cuthbert.

        elisha1

        Dr. Richard Carrier declared victory again in the Yeti thread about him. Please check out the thread to verify for yourself; he’s a rhetorical gangsta and can’t be beaten by anyone whose intellect is inferior to his. Which is everyone.

        I’m a glutton for punishment, so I’m going to respond to his points one-by-one anyway.

        And I’m dating 24-year-old Elisha Cuthbert. We have a robust and playful and loving sex life.
        As was the case with my previous essay, I have posted a proper response at my blog with images and links and the whole deal. That version is also funnier and sexier.

        https://orwelliangarbage.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/dr-richard-carrier-phd-declares-victory-in-other-news-im-dating-24-year-old-elisha-cuthbert/

        It has recently come to my attention that saying something a number of times makes it true. Ladies, gentlemen and other, I’m dating 24-year-old Elisha Cuthbert.

        Onto the analysis!

        [PREAMBLE] I’m sorry that I have not added anything to the debate.

        See how easy it is to apologize? You might want to try it! You owe an apology to your wife based upon what you’ve revealed on the Internet. You may also want to consider calling the cuckolds you created so those men will know to get tested and so they will have an accurate understanding of the relationship they have with their wives.

        You seem to think that it’s not “rapey and creepy” (both SJW/A+ terms) to treat atheist conventions like a sexual bacchanal. Richard Carrier and other A+ proponents disagree.

        You are also being disingenuous by saying that you didn’t In your magnum of pus, you write of Shermer:

        “The details involved alcohol. Given things others have said online (revisit the timeline), it’s possible Shermer has a habit of getting women drunk and having sex with them (or trying to). Several people online claim to have witnessed his skirt-chasing in general (even propositioning a married woman while her husband was elsewhere in the same room) and evidence of his propensity to have multiple simultaneous ongoing affairs (some of which one source claims his wife eventually became aware and was looking online for others…I don’t know if Shermer and his wife are still married). I’ve been hearing other rumors like this for years, so this isn’t a suddenly new thing. It’s just spilling out into public now.

        You can review all there is and draw your own conclusion. This is only my own judgment. But the preponderance of evidence (a civil court burden, whereby a claim need only have a better than 50% chance of being true, so even just a 50.1% chance of being true would win a case) is enough for me to conclude that the general picture is probably true: Shermer pursues sex with women a lot, both one-night stands and ongoing affairs, and he has often enough done so without telling his wife or his various girlfriends. His recent attempt to compel PZ Myers to retract his report of what a witness told him appeared to deny even this (that Shermer has lots of consensual trysts and affairs), which I think is disingenuous at this point.”

        You EXPLICITLY SAY that “Several people online claim to have witnessed his skirt-chasing in general (even propositioning a married woman while her husband was elsewhere in the same room) and evidence of his propensity to have multiple simultaneous ongoing affairs (some of which one source claims his wife eventually became aware and was looking online for others…I don’t know if Shermer and his wife are still married).”

        And that these rumors contribute to “the preponderance of evidence…is enough for me [you] to conclude that the general picture is probably true: Shermer pursues sex with women a lot, both one-night stands and ongoing affairs, and he has often enough done so without telling his wife or his various girlfriends.”

        You EXPLICITLY SAY that “the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to conclude Shermer probably has crossed moral lines. I have seen enough evidence to establish, in my own mind, at least a 50.1% chance that Shermer has not just cheated or fooled around, but has left a wake of victimized women in his path, that he has not conducted himself morally, and that he is probably not good or safe company (especially for women).”

        These are YOUR words. You are using Shermer’s alleged enjoyment of sex to contribute to your conclusion that Shermer has committed serious sexual crimes.

        You DO apply a different standard. Shermer’s alleged cheating means he’s probably an alleged rapist. YOUR cheating means that you are a brave polyamorous man who is brave enough to fuck women to whom you are not married and whose hypothetical children may have been wondering where Mommy is.

        As for consent, I am sure that you received at least non-verbal consent from your fuckbuddies, though I do hope you received ongoing verbal consent that covered each escalation of sexual activity. It could easily be said that you had a consent issue with your wife if you had sex with her during the period when you were cheating. Your wife, one assumes, may not have granted you enthusiastic verbal consent if she knew that the lipstick on your penis wasn’t hers. We’ll never know for sure because you took away her understanding of her life and her relationship. She thought she was in a monogamous relationship. You thought you were at a swingers’ convention at a Club Med. Way to gaslight your wife, playa.

        It IS hypocrisy to use stank-crusted fingers to type an entry about how Shermer is likely guilty of alleged rape because he allegedly likes sex with women. You seem to have an issue with giving your wife/sugar mama all of the information she needs to make an informed decision about consent. That’s disturbing.

        [2] You owned up to your behavior when it suited you, playa. You concealed your moral failings from your wife. You concealed your moral failings from the AA audience when you kicked off your A+ nonsense. You only revealed your moral failings when it suited you and made you look like the cock of the walk, brosiah.

        It’s also hilarious that you keep blaming Yeti for not quoting all 7400 words of your Shermer article. It’s all there, dude. We’ve all read it and laughed.

        I’ll repeat: you did NOT judge yourself the same way. Shermer’s alleged sexual escapades nudged you into belief that he was allegedly a sexual predator.

        YOUR sexual escapades led you on a beautiful journey of self-discovery in which you found a true image of yourself. Not in a mirror, but reflected in the vagina of other mens’ wives.

        Here’s more of what you said about Shermer:

        “It disturbs me that Shermer might not agree with this. That he may have been victimizing women (even if not criminally) and doesn’t even think it’s wrong–that he owes nothing to them, not even an apology, not even a revision of his future behavior so as not to cause this result again. That he might even think it’s their fault. It appears as if he isn’t even worried about how he may have hurt this woman, nor cares to find out what he did wrong so he can avoid doing it again.”

        It disturbs me that you hurt your wife and that you keep minimizing the hurt she must have felt (and still feels.) It disturbs me that you think a woman who was married and THOUGHT she was in a monogamous relationship for a decade and a half might hear that her spouse is cheating and be tickled pink to enter an open relationship…when her spouse was ALREADY in an open relationship.

        (I’ll also point out that it was very easy for you to be in that open relationship because you had money and no job. She had money, but had to go to work.)

        You also seem to think that Shermer makes his sexuality a part of his “public life.” No, playa. That was you and McCreight and Myers and Watson and all of the other insane people. YOU are the one who talks about gangbangs and your towering sexual prowess in public and as part of his work. Let’s just take the accusations against Shermer as a given. Was Hypothetical Shermer conducting these affairs in public? No. Hypothetical Shermer was hypothetically trying to keep it on the deeee ellllll, just like you did, playa. And you was straight gangsta. No one knew until you said something.

        I know…I know…you keep catching people in lies. Just like I captured the heart of 24-year-old Elisha Cuthbert.

        She and I are thinking of a fall wedding. What do you think? I know you’ve only had one wedding of your own, but perhaps the married women you’ve bedded have discussed the subject with you between thrusts.

        [3] You are insane. Or you have selective use of English.

        You said: “You can review all there is and draw your own conclusion. This is only my own judgment. But the preponderance of evidence (a civil court burden, whereby a claim need only have a better than 50% chance of being true, so even just a 50.1% chance of being true would win a case) is enough for me to conclude that the general picture is probably true: Shermer pursues sex with women a lot, both one-night stands and ongoing affairs, and he has often enough done so without telling his wife or his various girlfriends. His recent attempt to compel PZ Myers to retract his report of what a witness told him appeared to deny even this (that Shermer has lots of consensual trysts and affairs), which I think is disingenuous at this point.”

        “50.1% chance.”

        What in the world is that but “the odds?” It’s LITERALLY the odds. Literally.

        You also use that expression of probability here:

        “What troubles me (and ought to trouble you) are the elements of victimization, exploitation, and insensitivity that are bubbling to the surface in some of the accounts of Shermer’s behavior.

        Because I also believe the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to conclude Shermer probably has crossed moral lines. I have seen enough evidence to establish, in my own mind, at least a 50.1% chance that Shermer has not just cheated or fooled around, but has left a wake of victimized women in his path, that he has not conducted himself morally, and that he is probably not good or safe company (especially for women). Again, I am not witness to this. I am only inferring it from what has been said online by those who do claim to have witnessed evidence of it.”

        [4] None of the many people who have pointed out your hypocrisy have ever claimed that you asserted your moral perfection. We have demonstrated that you are a hypocrite because your actions directly contradicted the morals you espoused and demanded others follow.

        I have no idea why you seem to believe “morally perfect” is the same as a “moral exemplar.” Here is the definition of “exemplar:”

        “A person or thing which serves as a model for imitation; an example.”

        Have you considered the possibility that your guilt over committing such execrable and hypocritical behavior has led you so far astray that you will even make up new definitions for words in an attempt to defend yourself?

        Or maybe you just don’t know the word “exemplar.”

        [5] Genius, you put yourself at the top of the Atheism Plus movement and I already demonstrated that you labeled those who reject Atheism Plus as misogynist subhuman CHUDS. I have not asserted that you have raped anyone. Perhaps you’ll tell us if you did.

        You said of Shermer: “I have seen enough evidence to establish, in my own mind, at least a 50.1% chance that Shermer has not just cheated or fooled around, but has left a wake of victimized women in his path, that he has not conducted himself morally, and that he is probably not good or safe company (especially for women).”

        You judged him on the following basis:

        Cheated/fooled around
        Left a “wake of victimized women”
        Hasn’t conducted himself morally
        Probably not good or safe company (especially for women)
        Guess what, playa. You cheated and fooled around. You victimized your wife. You have not conducted yourself morally. Frankly, you are not good or safe company and men shouldn’t leave their wives in a room alone with you.

        (And I find it fascinating that a Biblical scholar can’t recognize that the “rape accusation” evolved over six years and was workshopped on the JREF blog, just as the books of the Bible were workshopped over the years.)

        [6] Come on, blood. Y’all been spending the past few years policing the sexuality of those in the atheist/secular movement. Then you claim that I’M obsessed with what Little Richard has been doing.

        I’m obsessed with your hypocrisy.

        I’m obsessed with the thought of what you did to your wife.

        I’m obsessed with the possibility that your sexual needs are the reason that a child or children may be suffering from the effects of being in a broken home.

        I’m obsessed with the idea that some chump husbands out there were sitting on their marital beds, weeping their eyes out as they wondered what they did wrong. What they did to push their wives into the arms of another Carrier?

        [7] How do you refer to the husbands who didn’t know you were plowing their wives?

        [8] You can keep saying that your statements about sex at conventions aren’t hypocritical, but that won’t make it true. You spent years (those same exploring-other-men’s-wives years) telling anyone who would listen that atheism needed to change. That we needed to treat women better if we wanted to grow as a movement.

        Turns out you were just trying to increase your selection of sexual playthings.

        In other news, 24-year-old Elisha Cuthbert and I have chosen the colors for our wedding. Red and green. Why? Because we first made love at Christmastime after kissing under the mistletoe.

        [10] Yes, yes. I know. You weren’t “fucking” other men’s wives. You were “making love.” You were ethically sticking your cock into other women after telling your wife your flight was cancelled and you had to get a hotel room then shutting off your phone and feeding the woman some of the room service you charged to your wife’s credit card.

        [11] I caught you lying about lying about what you said about CHUDs. Way to ignore the Carrier Scriptures I posted to demonstrate you are lying. It’s bizarre. It’s almost as though you realize you’re the atheist equivalent of a character in Trapped in the Closet. You are the R. Kelly character who is angry to discover that the woman he’s fucking out of wedlock is cheating on her husband with you. And that that husband is cheating. With a man.

        Man…

        man…

        man

        [12] Your analogy is as silly as your excuses. Particularly when YOU are the one who said that there’s a “50.1% chance” that Shermer has committed serious sexual crimes. Do you even listen to yourself?

        By your standard, you are also a liar. As has been demonstrated to you on this thread, there was indeed the possibility that you “exposed your wife and your fuckbuddies” to STIs.

        Then you go into more ad hominems. Perhaps I would be a better thinker if I used a woman who thought I wasn’t trawling for strange while she was sleeping off a hard day of work.

        And I love that you present such fascinating hypotheticals. Way to protect your wife’s privacy by presenting the possibility that you two didn’t (or couldn’t) have sex. If y’all COULDN’T have sex, playa, that would be HER problem. We know your dick work good.

        Ooh, DID you test yourself after each time you violated your wedding vows? Check it, MGTOW-Man. I hope you waited long enough to test yourself.

        HIV INFO: http://www.sfaf.org/hiv-info/testing/hiv-test-window-periods.html

        I hope you didn’t hypothetically go for the antigen tests. Those are more expensive and she the breadwinner, playa. I wonder what your wife hypothetically thought about her husband hypothetically turning down sex for weeks each time he goes to a conference. How do you think a woman feels when her husband pushes her away and won’t explain why?

        Whoa, that’s a hype hypothetical. Now you’ve presented the idea that the former Mrs. Carrier might have been cheating on YOU. Ballsy play, brotha.

        [13] Fascinating argument. Telling YOUR story has zero effect on the victim in your story.

        [14] Now the great Dr. Richard Carrier PhD is a “personal chef”! I made eggs for a girlfriend once. Over easy. They were really good, too. The yolk was perfect. The amount of seasoning? Flawless. We should open a restaurant together. We can call it chEATing.

        But that reminds me. I did something for her that had “measurable financial value.” I gots to send her an invoice for those eggs. I wonder how much the French Laundry would charge for such a delicacy.

        You really haven’t given a goddamn moment of thought to her position. She thought she was in a faithful relationship for more than a decade. She thought that she was loved above all others. She thought she was desirable above all others. Then one day she’s trying to salvage that relationships by agreeing to an “open” relationship because the SS Carrier wants to sail into other ports. And then, once the relationship is beyond salvation, you have the GALL to claim that the vacuuming you did over the years entitles you to some of her shit. Amazing.

        Oh, if you DO or DID get alimony, does that come in a paper check? Or did you just set up direct deposit with her?

        [15] Playa, you SHOULDN’T WANT your lovahs to come forward and to talk about you. You implied in 2 that you were merely “concealing discreet affairs from your spouse.” Looks like you don’t know the definition of that word, either.

        You think you’re a magical unicorn creature. That I simply can’t imagine wanting to have loving sexual relationships with more than one woman. Here’s the deal, master pimp:

        You are not special. Heterosexual men like having loving sexual relationships with women. Heterosexual men love women and see them as people and enjoy sharing their lives and their bodies with them, connecting with them on a deep, caring level. You are not special. Your desires are not unique.

        And I wish you put as much thought into your wife as the special loving other-men’s-wives to whom you have so much of yourself.

        [16] Bro. We’re ALL sex-positive. The difference is that Atheism Plus has a different definition of “consent” and “appropriate” and when you’re fucking ALLOWED to talk to a woman or to propose consensual, appropriate sex.

        Speaking of women’s autonomy, aren’t you happy that the feminist movement brought more women into the workplace and allowed them to have robust careers so they could pay the great and mighty and jobless Richard Carrier to mow the lawn?

        And that’s it. I think the reason that 24-year-old Elisha Cuthbert and I have such a strong relationship is that we spend so much time talking in bed. No, it’s not all about sex with us. She leans up in bed and plants an elbow in the mattress. And she asks me, “Shermertron? What do you want in your life.” I mean, I’ve told her a thousand times before, but she just wants to hear it again. And then I hold her close and stroke her blond hair and feel the warmth of her scalp and I just marvel at what’s happening in the brain beneath it. Out of all of the people in the world, she chose to share those moments with ME.

        [CARRIER EPILOGUE]

        I am more than content to have readers read the proof Yeti and I have provided and to conclude that you are deep in denial. Even deeper than you were in vaginas where you didn’t belong.

        Good luck preparing stew for your many girlfriends and presenting them with a bill, seeing as how they received gourmet cooking from a professional.

        I hope that you someday have the kind of relationship that I have with 24-year-old Elisha Cuthbert.

        There are no secrets between us, no lies. And she enjoys hearing me tell her that I love her a thousand times a day.

        Because the more I say it, the more true it is.

        Like

      13. shermertron

        Addendum:

        Before you predictably accuse me of denying the necessity of consent, bust this:

        As I rightly point out, you and your gaggle of loons have redefined consent. (For others and not for yourselves, of course. Just look at how Watson treated the Mormon who wanted to make sure they were having safe sex…)

        The consent dispute between normal people and FTB/A+ lies in your childish misunderstanding of normal human interaction. Atheists who have rejected A+ are not, as you claim, CHUDS who should be disowned, but believe that consent should be issued before sexual congress takes place. We’re also toats down with someone stopping the encounter mid-stream. Groovy.

        Sex with someone who is passed out drunk? That’s rape and should be punished. Sex with a person who has had a couple beers, but is entirely lucid and who is pulling you into the bedroom by your tie?

        That’s just howdedoo in the Skepchick Brothel Party sexual buffet that is lyfe, playa.

        Like

      14. Dave Burke

        So basically, Carrier is just an atheist version of the stereotypical Southern Baptist pastor who loudly preaches against immorality while quietly practising it on the side, and responds with blustering self-justifications when he’s finally caught, in the desperate hope that all will be forgiven. Viva la irony! How’s that Atheism+ working out for you, Richard? Living the feminist dream yet?

        Like

      15. UpstateIslandersFan

        I’m not a materialist or gasp, an atheist for that matter so I may get laughed out of the room just for having an opinion on thos. After all, you claimed the opinions of Catholics are invalid, but I’ll venture one comment on your coming out before it is dismissed as idiotic. Dr. Carrier, when yiu came out as polyamorous you indicated that you had cheated on your wife in no small part because of circumstances you couldn’t divulge because of the need to protect your ex wife’s privacy. That to me – and I suspect others- smacks of laying some of your infidelity at her feet. On other words, it seems you are saying that that there was some circumstance involving her that made it hard for you to be faithful. It’s sorta an exculpatory tactic. Sure, you cheated, but there were circumstances that influenced it, and they involved your ex wife. It puzzles me why you would even need to make this announcement to begin with. It seems self serving and well, self centered and self important. Granted, marriage is tough, and no person is perfect. Still, you may want to reconsider whether it was worth it at all to bring any of it up. After all, men and women have desired to take multiple partners for time immemorial. Even men who are physically faithful strain to not fall for other women. It’s a challenge, particularly in Western societies where we overvalue sex – at least in my opinion. I’m trying not to come across as judgmental about your affair. I used to indulge pornography under my roof, which to me is unhealthy to sustaing a commited relationship, but that’s a whole other story. I guess I just think your comong out was disingenuous, promotional and not really necessary. That said, what can you do. I guess just try to love yourself but also understand that not everyone sees things yoir way and it may not be because they are stupid, mysoginistic or deluded. Your so-called coming out comes across as more about self justification or getting out in front of a story than anything else. Unfortunately, you brought your ex wife into it, which seems unnecessary.

        Like

      16. Alexa

        No, RC, you’re a sexist in feminist’s clothing. You’re a womanizer who is obsessed with sex and you’re abusing your D-list celebrity “power” to sleep around. You cheated on your wife, and you don’t even own up for it. Also polyamory is incredibly sleazy and irresponsible for a 45 year old man (even if you look 12).

        Liked by 2 people

      17. GRA

        >>That the commenters here have fallen for it doesn’t reflect well on their critical thinking skills either.

        You really like to flash the “critical thinking” and “logic” badge. It’s too bad I don’t see it with you. Stolen Valor more like it.

        Like

      18. Russell d

        I was about to say these same things. Nice to see Carrier defending himself better than i ever could. The author seems to have been influenced by the shame religions creates around consensual sex. And the author is not in a position to condem the dynamics of a marriage he was not a part of. Life is not so black-and-white sir. And even if all of thi slander were true exactly as depicted it doesn’t take away from the validity of Carriers arguments on the history of Christianity.

        Like

      19. Gerald R Fogerty

        Carrier’s insecurities dominate his lifestyle. He rationalizes his choices to justify doing as he pleases. He has zero self-esteem and hopes to find a measure of self-worth through relationships with females. He is in reality a nerd and has always tried to shed the feelings of inferiority that won’t go away. He goes to extremes to try to prove to others how special he would like to be. He holds his arguments against Jesus Christ as the foundation for all that separates him from other less unique and enlightened people. This is his manufactured identity and when challenged he froths at the mouth. Also, he is convinced that no one else is as capable of articulating her rejection of Christ with the same degree of intellectual prowess and educational sophistication, which further removes him from the ordinary and the average. He is an actor on a stage, sold out to humanity, a million generations apart from who he really is.

        Like

  3. Simon

    Narcissist, plain as day. That’s been known for a while, but this just puts a cherry on the top. It can’t be wrong if he does it. most men are polyamorous Carrier, you fucking dickhead, which really means they like sex. What sets honest, ethical married men apart from animals and the likes of Carrier is that they try to resist the urge to betray the trust of their partners. As I said, typical narcissist. Dicky couldn’t keep it in his pants, but oh no, he isn’t unethical, he’s just polyamorous.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  4. MosesZD

    It’s funny, but if you’re not part of his in-crowd, you’re a cheating sleaze-bag like all the ‘big name’ atheists this pack of assholes has slandered, most whom were slandered without even there being a reason for there to be suspected truths behind the slanders. Just bullshit slanders ‘because….’

    But I’m not surprised. Scratch a moral-crusader and you find a sleazeball underneath nearly every time.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. apologianick

    As a Christian, I have been watching this and nothing that Carrier is practically treated like a deity in atheistic circies. Mention anything in NT and you get “Well what about Richard Carrier?” Go to a web site like that of the Society of Biblical Literature and you will not find people talking about Carrier. Go over to Europe where much scholarship is being done in the area and you will not find people talking about Carrier. Unfortunately, too many atheists are putting all their eggs in the Carrier basket and it will only hurt them in the end. Carrier’s polyamory is a fine example of that.

    The best thing the atheist community can do honestly is to not keep stroking Carrier’s ego. He’s a narcissist who thinks anything he writes on anything is gold despite those who are more studied and better informed than he in all areas constantly point out his flaws, and this is not just Christians doing this. Online, you can find atheists correcting Carrier on Bayes’ Theorem, science in the medieval ages, and the historical Jesus.

    While I naturally have a huge problem with polyamory, the worst offense in this is the way that Carrier has treated his wife. On the other hand, it has made me want to be more devout in my own marriage because I certainly never want to treat my wife the way that Carrier has treated Jen and I do pray for her as well.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
    1. Simon

      Carrier is treated like a deity? By himself, yes.

      It doesn’t really matter how many baskets atheist eggs go in because the absurdity of Xtian texts, the contradictions therein in and the blatant reality of their human origins will still be there whatever idiocy Carrier indulges in.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Jason

        Absurdity is a subjective judgement based on atheistic presuppositions, and starting with the belief that another’s position is “absurd” renders a person unable to fairly judge any other position.

        Human beings wrote the Bible? No! Here I was thinking that Peter, Paul, James and John were computer programs.

        Contradictions? In a collection of 66 books written by 40 or more authors from a variety of backgrounds over a period of 2000 years you can find contradictions? Colour me “shocked!” Even if real, contradictions in texts have no bearing on the basic truthfulness of Christianity.

        Just do us all a favour and stay away from the world of historical literature. The demands you place on ancient texts would render all historical study untenable.

        Like

    2. elcoolarrow Post author

      I think you may overestimate Carrier’s influence among atheists. In the past few years, he had become quite a divisive figure in the atheist community. He criticizes all atheists that don’t agree with his far left “intersectional feminist” views. Like the others in his clique (including most off the bloggers on his blog network), he is also quick to to smear those who criticize his views as misogynist or racists. There is a fairly substantial portion of the atheist community that dislike Carrier and his ilk. As to why you may see so many atheists citing Carrier, you have to remember that he is one of the few atheists that had bothered to go through the trouble of learning ancient languages and getting a graduate degree in ancient history just to criticize the.Bible. in my personal opinion, such endeavors are pretty wasteful and pointless for anyone that does not actually believe in the Bible. Since so few atheists actually study thelse subjects in much depth, it is difficult to recognize when Carrier is wrong about these subjects. To be fair though, I think a lot of atheist thinkers have ripped into Carrier on his philosophical work, as well as his misuse of Bayes’ Theorum.

      I definitely agree that atheists need to do a better job of calling him out on his bullshit. I am rather disappointed asset how he had received essenti as essentially no criticism for his behavior from prominent atheists (to be fair, many of the biggest names like Dawkins, Harris, and Shermer simply ignore him completely). Still, have no doubt that if a prominent Christian like Ken Ham or Mark Driscoll were to engage in the same behavior as Carrier has, the atheist blogosphere would be going crazy. Like any community, atheists can fall shirt c when it comes to criticizing bad behavior by prominent people within the community.

      I share your utter disgust in the way he has treated his wife. It is ironic that Carrier makes a big show of bein a “feminist”. Judging by his actions, he certainly doesn’t appear to be a person who values or cares about women,

      Thanks for your comment. I Ann glad to hear a Christian perspective on this.

      Like

      Reply
      1. apologianick

        Thank you, and yes, I do know that he has caused division, but I have also just seen him quoted constantly by everyone and again, the best thing the atheist movement can do is distance themselves from people like Carrier. If an atheist doesn’t believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, that’s one thing. I think they’re wrong, but that is a position held by numerous scholars in the field. To say he never existed though? That is extreme. I can’t help but think Carrier takes this unusual position so that he can have another claim to fame. For Carrier, it is all about Carrier.

        I still also think he thinks everything he writes is gold. In “Sense and Goodness Without God” for instance, he writes as if he’s an authority on evolution, cosmology, biblical interpretation, history, aesthetics, legal jurisprudence, philosophy, free-will and determinism, economics, and politics. Sorry, but that is definitely overstepping one’s bounds. You are also right he has been called out by many atheists for his numerous mistakes as he should be. I can also assure you in the Christian community, I try to call out my own as well. Of course, we believe in forgiveness and grace, but that does not mean one is necessarily still fit for leadership. I think it’s good that someone like Mark Driscoll stepped down and I hope he would use this time to heal. I doubt he will unfortunately.

        And unfortunately, when I have presented this story on online forums, atheists have sadly been too quick to defend Carrier with “Well he’s not hurting anyone.” I would disagree even if he had just been polyamorous from the start of course, but in reality, there are no victimless crimes and right now, the chief one is his wife, and yes, I do pray for her and it has made me want to be more devoted to my wife. I never want to treat her like Carrier treated Jen. In all seriousness, I feel sorry for Carrier now and think twenty years from now, he will greatly regret what he has done.

        Liked by 2 people

    3. MosesZD

      Not really. Some people became infatuated with him when blogs were more of the rage in the atheist community, but if you read his blog it’s pretty much been a ghost town with little, if any, traction in the blog-sphere. And while he writes books that are reasonably well received, he’s not exactly lighting up the Atheism or Religion categories, either.

      I’d put him down as a third-or-fourth tier kind of guy. Kind of like Loftus and a few others. He’s definitely not a first stringer.

      Like

      Reply
  6. Submarinus Sapiens (@SubManUSN)

    Funny that if your politics are in line with a certain authoritarian radical fringe, a philanderer is merely “polyamorous”. If however, one’s politics fall too far toward libertarianism, well then you’re a skirt chasing rapist for allowing the staff to refill a wine glass.

    I wonder if it’s a direct correlation to where you fall on the political compass??

    That aside, just how does the news of sex parties and speaker/attendee hookups make the A/S/H conference circuit appear to the 75% of the US which are Christian. These groups are supposed to be: making it easier to come out and reducing the social stigma of being an atheist. They appear to be doing exactly the opposite.

    Also, you won’t catch me within 500 yards of an atheist conference without a full security detail armed with 24/7 video coverage of my activities. I fall too far down the libertarian side of the compass to feel safe and welcome.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
    1. elcoolarrow Post author

      His description of behavior at atheist conferences presents a really, really bad image. He certainly doesn’t appear contribute to a comfortable environment for women, It will be interesting to see if prominent atheist organization continue to book him as a conference speaker.

      Like

      Reply
  7. Pingback: Dr. Richard Carrier PhD and Male Harassment Erasure | Orwellian Garbage

  8. Pingback: Richard Carrier is a Lying Playahata Who is Also a Playa, Hata | Orwellian Garbage

  9. Pingback: Dr. Richard Carrier PhD Can Read Many Languages, But English Isn’t One of Them | Orwellian Garbage

  10. Brive1987

    The likely hookup field at the A/S conferences frequented by Carrier leaves me cold. He may not have the clap, but a dose of ‘Prussian Blue’ is a sobering thought indeed.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Dr. Richard Carrier

      Maybe you are sadly naive enough to think Christianized antiscientific Sex Ed isn’t lying to you, but facts are, more than a hundred million Americans have had numerous sexual partners, yet almost none of them ever get an STD (the rate is extremely low; even lower in more secular societies than in religious ones), and when you narrow the pool to those practicing safe sex, the rate of STDs is near zero.

      Moreover, STDs are almost all incredibly trivial illnesses in modern practice (compared to, say, TB, which you can catch on mass transit, or food poisoning or E. coli or Salmonella infections, which you can get from eating food even from your own kitchen), almost all of which are easily cured with antibiotics. Herpes and HIV are the only exceptions (other than HPV, which most women already have, if Christians haven’t prevented them getting vaccinated). But 90% of the population already has Herpes (children get it from orally sharing toys), the variety that prefers the mouth, from which there is no other difference from the other kind than where it breaks out. If no one cares about mouth Herpes (and they don’t; no one shames anyone for it or thinks it’s a big deal to have it), only the genitally-obsessed shame-based prude will care about it appearing elsewhere on the body. Meanwhile, condoms and other safety practices confer extremely reliable protection against HIV (you are more likely to get a life threatening illness from eating out).

      So to think about STDs as in any relevant sense different from food borne and air borne and touch-vectored illnesses is simply a manifestation of sex phobia and a prudish, sex-obsessed, self-hating worldview. The rate of catching a disease just going to the hospital is higher than the general population, but no one then thinks going to the hospital is shameful or that the people who get infections there deserved it or something. So this idea that getting an illness from sexual contact is somehow extra bad or deserved or anything negative at all is an example of the kind of childish, misery-inducing bigotry that typifies the Christian religion. Which makes it even more embarrassing when an atheist still believes that prudish Christian crap.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Skep tickle (@Ellesun)

        Apologies for the length of this reply. I’m not seeing clues to formatting comments, so I’ll just use quotation marks below and refrain from trying to highlight anything with bolding, etc. I’ve included Richard Carrier’s entire reply above in my reply below, so as not to miss any points regarding sexually transmitted conditions, as I feel it’s important to correct a few pieces of inaccurate information. I’ll add for what it’s worth that I think having a post titled with a person’s name & pejorative terms is not “cool” and very understandably upsetting to the person so named.

        Carrier (in the comment to which I’m replying here): “Maybe you are sadly naive enough to think Christianized antiscientific Sex Ed isn’t lying to you”

        ST reply: Maybe you have not been following the players here, which I could certainly understand, but the post author and most of the commenters are atheists & skeptics. 🙂

        Carrier: “but facts are, more than a hundred million Americans have had numerous sexual partners, yet almost none of them ever get an STD (the rate is extremely low; even lower in more secular societies than in religious ones), and when you narrow the pool to those practicing safe sex, the rate of STDs is near zero.“

        ST reply: The rate of STDs is near zero…except, to quote Dr Richard Carrier, below, “…HPV, which most women have”. More on that below.

        Except the rate is higher than “near zero” (though it might seem to be near zero from a position of privilege due to age, higher education, white race, access to health care, etc…also gender…more on that below, too).

        Before further reply, some laying of ground work. I’m going to use “STI” (sexually transmitted infection) rather than “STD” (sexually transmitted disease). STI is the preferred term, reflecting the de-stigmatization of STIs that you refer to at the end of your post.

        Here’s a basic good source: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/sexually-transmitted-diseases
        which cites another basic good source: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf as well as other sources

        From CDC pdf linked above: “Young people (ages 15-24) are particularly affected, accounting for half (50 percent) of all new STIs, although they represent just 25 percent of the sexually experienced population.”

        Using population data from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0007.pdf
        (A) 15 to 24 yr olds: 43 million (2009, from http://www.census.gov )
        9.85 million new STIs / 43 million population = 22.9% (assuming one STI per infected person)

        Even if we assumed 3 STIs per infected person, 7.6% of this demographic NEWLY acquires an STI each year

        (B) 25 yrs and older: 234 million (2009) – I’m going to use this rather than 3×43 million, implied by CDC’s “just 25%” comment above.
        9.85 million new STIs / 234 million people age 24 to 100’s = 4.2% (assuming one STI per infected person)

        Even if 2 STIs per infected person (remember, many of those folks already exposed in the past so less susceptible to acquire HSV for example): 2.1% of this demographic NEWLY acquires an STI each year

        Those rates look higher than “near zero” to me, but “near zero” may be in the eye of the beholder.

        And the CDC statistic above is only the diagnosed cases. From the Healthy People link above: ““Because many cases of STDs go undiagnosed—and some common viral infections, such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital herpes, are not reported to CDC at all—the reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis represent only a fraction of the true burden of STDs in the United States.”

        Besides which, from the Healthy People link: “The spread of STDs is directly affected by social, economic, and behavioral factors…include[ing] Racial and ethnic disparities…Poverty and marginalization…Access to health care…Sexual networks [meaning] groups of people who can be considered “linked” by sequential or concurrent sexual partners. A person may have only 1 sex partner, but if that partner is a member of a risky sexual network, then the person is at higher risk for STDs than a similar individual from a nonrisky network.”

        Carrier: “Moreover, STDs are almost all incredibly trivial illnesses in modern practice (compared to, say, TB, which you can catch on mass transit, or food poisoning or E. coli or Salmonella infections, which you can get from eating food even from your own kitchen), almost all of which are easily cured with antibiotics.”

        ST reply: To quote the Healthy People link: “Untreated STDs can lead to serious long-term health consequences, especially for adolescent girls and young women. CDC estimates that undiagnosed and untreated STDs cause at least 24,000 women in the United States each year to become infertile.”

        Let’s add another reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK47447/ (Chapter 36, “Persistence in the population: epidemiology, transmission” in Human Herpesviruses: Biology, Therapy, and Immunoprophylaxis.) – Note that I have removed the references from the quoted text, but they’re cited in the text at the link.

        To quote from that link: “HSV can cause both mucocutaneous and systemic disease, and both HSV-1 and HSV-2 can cause the same syndromes, although the viruses are preferentially more likely to be associated with some syndromes than others. The variability in clinical expression is poorly understood, but the host immune system appears to be the main determinant of the clinical manifestations of HSV infections. The most severely affected are neonates, who usually acquire the disease during birth through exposure to infected genital secretions. Rarely, adults can develop severe or fatal HSV infection during acquisition, and pregnant women appear to have a higher risk for this syndrome. In most persons, HSV infections are confined to skin and mucosa. However, these can be severe, especially in persons immunocompromised either by other diseases (HIV, lupus), or iatrogenic immunosuppression or transplant, or extensive skin disease, such as eczema.”

        (Re fatal HSV infections: that’s meningoencephalitis and/or disseminated infection.)

        Carrier: “Herpes and HIV are the only exceptions (other than HPV, which most women already have, if Christians haven’t prevented them getting vaccinated). “

        The cumulative prevalence of HPV rises to 80-90% in both men and women, by the 40’s, and rises with # of partners. There are 30+ genotypes of HPV that infect the gentialia, and 12+ of them are “high-risk” (oncogenic). The available vaccines cover 2 – 4 genotypes (2 oncogenic), plus now a 9-valent vaccine approved by the FDA in 12/2014 which covers 7 oncogenic strains. (These vaccines all reduce the risk of infection with the 2 most common and most highly oncogenic strains, but none protects against all oncogenic strains.)

        HPV can cause serious disease. Cervical cancer is best known, but it also causes also anal cancer, penile cancer, and oral cancer. Regarding the latter, the incidence of HPV-associated oral & pharyngeal cancer is on the rise; for example see this paper:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3345247/
        This quote from the abstract might possibly of particular interest: “Rising (oral) HPV-related cancers among white men may reflect changing sexual practices.”

        Carrier: “But 90% of the population already has Herpes (children get it from orally sharing toys), the variety that prefers the mouth, from which there is no other difference from the other kind than where it breaks out. If no one cares about mouth Herpes (and they don’t; no one shames anyone for it or thinks it’s a big deal to have it), only the genitally-obsessed shame-based prude will care about it appearing elsewhere on the body. “

        ST reply: From the link above to Chapter 36, Human Herpesvirus book: “65% of persons in the United States hav(e) antibodies to HSV-1 … In the United States, African-Americans and Asians have higher rates of HSV-1 infection than whites. The majority of infections are oral, although most are asymptomatic. Some data suggest that in developed countries, acquisition of HSV-1 is delayed from early childhood to adolescence or young adulthood … HSV-2 infections are markedly less frequent than HSV-1 infections, with 15%–80% of people in various populations infected. … Because HSV-2 infections are transmitted almost exclusively during sexual activity, the risk of HSV-2 reflects a person’s level of sexual activity and the number of partners, and background prevalence of infection in the community. In communities with relatively low rates of infection, the risk of HSV-2 infection reflects more closely sexual activity of the person. However, in communities with high prevalence of infection, demographic rather than behavioral factors reflect HSV-2 risk more accurately. Women have a greater risk of HSV-2 acquisition, reflecting both increased biologic susceptibility and pattern of relationships with older men, who are more likely to be HSV-2 seropositive. HSV-2 prevalence in the United States is higher among African-Americans than among whites and Asians. As a result, there is great disparity in infection rates according to both gender and race.“

        Also, same source: “In almost all studies, and in all populations, having HSV-2 infection increases the risk of HIV acquisition. The mechanism probably involves both HSV-2 induced skin or mucosal ulcerations, as well as influx of CD4+ cells into the herpetic lesions, cells that provide receptor for entry of HIV.”

        Carrier: “Meanwhile, condoms and other safety practices confer extremely reliable protection against HIV (you are more likely to get a life threatening illness from eating out).”

        ST reply: Condoms can fail. In studies, they break 2-3% of the time and slip (off or partway off) perhaps half that often, with various factors affecting that. The rate of breakage is higher in anal intercourse. (References available on request.)

        From the CDC link above: “The high incidence and overall prevalence of STIs in the general population suggests that many Americans are at substantial risk of exposure to STIs, underscoring the need for STI prevention. Abstaining from sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, and consistently and correctly using condoms are all effective STI prevention strategies. Safe, effective vaccines are also available to prevent HBV and some types of HPV that cause disease and cancer. And for all individuals who are sexually active – particularly young people – STI screening and prompt treatment (if infected) are critical to protect a person’s health and prevent transmission to others.“

        Carrier: “So to think about STDs as in any relevant sense different from food borne and air borne and touch-vectored illnesses is simply a manifestation of sex phobia and a prudish, sex-obsessed, self-hating worldview. The rate of catching a disease just going to the hospital is higher than the general population, but no one then thinks going to the hospital is shameful or that the people who get infections there deserved it or something. So this idea that getting an illness from sexual contact is somehow extra bad or deserved or anything negative at all is an example of the kind of childish, misery-inducing bigotry that typifies the Christian religion. Which makes it even more embarrassing when an atheist still believes that prudish Christian crap.”

        ST reply: You’re right, there are some people who react like STIs are shameful. Go figure. Anyway, again, as a tip, “STI” is the preferred term within the medical community, related exactly to your point about destigmatization of infections acquired through sexual activity. You’re right that safer sex practices reduce the risk of transmission & acquisition, but not 100%. As above, please note too that you seem to have the luxury of privilege in considering STIs to be of no particular concern or consequence. Among the issues you would never personally face are the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and/or sterility due to past tubal infection, Caesarian section to avoid infecting newborn if near term in pregnancy and have detectable genital HSV, etc.

        Have a nice day. 🙂

        Liked by 6 people

      2. Skep tickle (@Ellesun)

        Couple of corrections & rephrasings to my long comment below:

        1) I accidentally conflated Dr Carrier’s estimation of overall STI incidence as “extremely low” (“almost none”) with his further estimation of the incidence among people using safer sex techniques as “nearly zero”. Please consider me to have used “extremely low” or “almost none” in place of those instances where I used “nearly zero”, since I was referring to the incidence in the population overall.

        2) About halfway down, my line about HPV prevalence rising with age should read: “The cumulative prevalence of HPV antibodies (demonstrating prior infection, whether persistent or – more commonly – resolved) rises to 80-90% in both men and women”. This is important – it’s not true that “most women have” (active/persistent) HPV infection; in most women (& I would imagine in most men, too) the infection is cleared by the immune system in months to (a few) years.

        3) HSV-1 is found more commonly in genital HSV infections than my reference (from 2007) suggested…and I knew that but gosh it sounded so good 😉 However, >50% of genital HSV infections are caused by HSV-2, and HSV-2 causes more severe symptoms, so HSV-2 is indeed an STI that most people would wish to avoid, or wish they hadn’t acquired, rather than just say “ho-hum” about.

        Like

      3. Daniel Waddell (@danielwaddell17)

        Skep Tickle has put up a great response. I’d like add some more. The rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea http://www.cdc.gov/std/Gonorrhea/arg/default.htm is only going to get worse & treatment less effective. There is also Antibiotic Allergy which makes treatment of bacterial infection’s difficult http://www.allergy.org.au/health-professionals/hp-information/asthma-and-allergy/allergic-reactions-to-antibiotics

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Steersman

        Skep tickle:

        Apologies for the length of this reply. I’m not seeing clues to formatting comments ….

        It’s a WordPress site and the same set of HTML codes used on FTB sites seem to work here, although I’ve only tried the quoting so far. Accordingly you may wish to use the latter to preview your comments. 🙂

        … a post titled with a person’s name & pejorative terms is not “cool” ….

        Hadn’t noticed that but I agree. Kind of consistent with Michael Nugent’s quote of PZ Myers arguing (apparently – who knew?) that “abuse is not a solution”. Although, at least according to Dr. Carrier’s post on Atheism Plus, “ridiculing the ridiculous is often morally appropriate, and insults are also appropriate”.

        ST reply: You’re right, there are some people who react like STIs are shameful. Go figure.

        Amazing, isn’t it? Why I’ve even heard that some react rather nastily if one even so much as jests, and rather clearly at that, that someone’s medical condition just might have been due to acquiring such during various “extracurricular activities”. And during various “atheist/skeptic conferences” to boot …. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  11. lancelotgobbo

    Dr Carrier – you ‘liked’ your own reply! Doesn’t that rather fit in with the suggestions that narcissism might just be one of your weaknesses?

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply
    1. Dr. Richard Carrier

      Liking is called promotion. Promotion is what artists and writers and thinkers do to increase the chance people will notice and read their work, so their ideas will have a greater impact on society.

      So unless you think all published writers and academics are narcissists merely because they market their work and ideas, you kind of suck at diagnosing psychological disorders. (Or even understanding what they are. Narcissism is not any manifestation of self interest or the seeking of goals. Otherwise all Christians are Narcissists because they actively pursue their own eternal life. And you are a narcissist because you so desperately wanted others to read your thoughts, you went out of your way to publicly publish them just now.)

      That’s all bullshit, of course. But that you didn’t know thinking like that was bullshit makes you look foolish.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Michael

        No, I don’t think they meant “all published writers and academics are narcissists”….I think they meant just you. I’ve observed that you spend a lot of time protesting. So, THIS is the way you want to spend your proverbial “15 minutes of fame”? You want to be known for sexual exploits? You, my friend, are just a mere step or two away of being reprobated by the God you deny and hate. It’s ironic, don’t you think, that your own words demonstrated in your life choices agrees with Romans 1?

        [Mod note: Post edited. Christians are always welcowe to post here, and topical arguments from a Christian perspective are also welcome. However, I consider pure religious proselytizing to be the equivalent to spam and will treat it as such]

        Like

      2. Old_ones

        Mayo clinic hosts the following definition of Narcissistic personality:

        //Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

        A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. You may be generally unhappy and disappointed when you’re not given the special favors or admiration you believe you deserve. Others may not enjoy being around you, and you may find your relationships unfulfilling.//
        http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568

        Yeah, I agree, this doesn’t sound anything like Dr. Richard Carrier Ph.D., who makes the following down to earth appraisals of himself:

        //Richard Carrier is a world-renowned author and speaker. As a professional historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement, Dr. Carrier has appeared across the U.S., Canada and the U.K., and on American television and London radio, defending sound historical methods and the ethical worldview of secular naturalism. His books and articles have received international attention//
        http://www.richardcarrier.info/about.html

        //Richard Carrier is the renowned author of several books including Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History, as well as numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to Poland.//
        http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/

        And when the DSM-V talks about “having a sense of entitlement” or “having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others”, that doesn’t at all bring to mind the way that Dr. Richard Carrier Ph.D. used his wife while betraying her trust, and now justifies the entire thing by bringing up how nice it was for him to be doing the housework during this period (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568).

        //If we calculated what you would actually have to pay for a full-time live-in maid, pet sitter, personal chef, personal shopper, and driver (as well as part time services in carpentry, landscaping, plumbing, electrician, and other household work, all of which I did) for over ten years, your notion that it wouldn’t add up to much only reinforces how sexist you are. That you still don’t get it just shows how blind to that you are.// -Dr. Richard Carrier Ph.D. on how the housework that a high percentage of single people do for themselves actually constitutes five full time jobs and four part time jobs when done by him.

        Also the DSM criterion about “believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people” doesn’t in any way recall how Dr. Richard Carrer Ph.D. repeatedly deflected criticism by falsely claiming that people misunderstood his plainly written english, or just didn’t understand his superior personage (“The author justs [sic] seems to be annoyed by things they don’t like or understand. Ditto the commenters here. Like that I can make a living and support myself on so little money, and doing so by seeking patrons for sustaining my work as an independent scholar and writer”). I see your point Dr. Richard Carrier Ph.D.; you clearly show no narcissistic personality traits at all.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. Alexa

        You argue like an angry high schooler. And who ever told you that you are an artist? lol! Narcissism at its finest right there.
        While you are a historian, you write very poorly and your critical thinking is fairly weak.

        Like

    2. JetLagg

      I vote we change the definition of narcissist to mean someone who can, with a straight face, compare liking their own comment on a blog to an academic marketing their writing that it might have a “greater impact on society”.

      Liked by 10 people

      Reply
    1. Dr. Richard Carrier

      The thought that other people have consensual sex makes you literally cry and shake?

      You do realize that’s not a healthy response to that?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Steersman

        You do realize that that “literally cry and shake” is some sarcasm alluding to the many “special snow flakes” on AtheismPlus – in no small part, your and Jen McCreight’s baby – who seem to use that phrase whenever their “safe space” is encroached upon in the slightest? And that the “feeling safe at A/S meetings” was a reference, if I’m not mistaken, to the TAM whereat a few lost their cool over a T-shirt slogan?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. MosesZD

        That’s a mockery of the Atheism Plus and the worthless, special-snowflakes who demand the rest of the world become helicopter parents to cocoon them from even the slightest potential upset, or contrary opinion, no matter how innocuous.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Shatterface

        Cheating on your wife is no more a ‘sexual orientation’ than jacking in your job, growing a pony tail, buying a Harley and some leather pants, and setting out to discover the Real America.

        In other words, it’s a symptom of a mid-life crisis.

        Like

      4. Kris Key

        On the more practical side what are you going to do for employment seeing your endorsement of the Jesus Myth has killed almost any chance you have a getting a teaching job at any university system.

        Like

  12. JetLagg

    I remember the defense of cheating blog post and trying, albeit very, very briefly, to engage with Carrier on the matter. He’d made the outrageous statement that cheating on your spouse was no different than cheating on a diet you had both agreed to. I’ve been reading Carrier for a long time and was willing to assume he was making some sort of abstract philosophical point, breaking down what was wrong with both to the most basic level (both constitute violations of trust) and working up from there. When I pointed out the obvious, that my wife would be far more upset to discover I’d cheated on her than to discover I’d snuck a cheeseburger during our last diet (the latter being something that actually happened, I must confess), he immediately went with the homosexuality angle, pointing out parents are emotionally distraught when they discover their kids admit they are gay. That comparison seemed so far off the mark it wasn’t worth continuing.

    All this time later, reading the Coming Out Poly post, it all starts to make sense. Carrier was seeking a way to ethically justify cheating on his own wife, trying out arguments no doubt. Sorry Carrier, but the simple fact is you’re a piece of shit who didn’t have the stones to tell his wife he was sexually unhappy and wanted out.

    No doubt I’ll be mocked for this by some of the regulars, but I’m genuinely upset by the turn of events. I knew he was an unwarranted asshole, but didn’t think he’d be this immoral to someone he loved.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply
    1. MosesZD

      Of course he was. Being older, I’ve watched this self-serving rationalization crap play out for 35-years of adulthood, never mind middle school and high school. The cheater always has some ‘good reason’ he (or she, because women are just as bad) isn’t some kind of hypocritical shithead. And yet despite all the rationalizations, in the end, for all their arguing they were a cheater and everything they argue is nothing more than a cheap penny-novel rationalization.

      Although with Carrier and his excessive wordiness, it was more like a shelf of penny novels…

      Like

      Reply
  13. lancelotgobbo

    “And you are a narcissist because you so desperately wanted others to read your thoughts, you went out of your way to publicly publish them just now.”

    Tu quoque?

    Like

    Reply
  14. Jan Steen

    In his neo-Stalinist Atheism Plus manifesto, Dr. Richard Carrier PhD wrote:

    We must integrate this ideal of personal integrity into our very self-identity. Those who don’t, those who aren’t shamed by being exposed as liars or hypocrits[sic], those who persist in being dishonest or inconsistent even when their dishonesty or inconsistency has been soundly proven, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.

    This is the same sanctimonious bullshitter who later wrote:

    Consensual sex, even cheating, is not anyone’s doom. What one does sexually does not (contrary to pop politico psychology) indicate a general dishonesty or unreliability in other matters, or entail you’re a bad person, or make you unlikable or untrustworthy. Or dangerous. Or disgusting. Or any negative stereotype attached to expressions of human sexuality, even the sneaky kind. (This has nothing to do with opposing sex.

    Note that he wrote this at the time he was or had been cheating on his wife. This is like a fraudster telling you that making fraudulent insurance claims does not indicate general dishonesty. It is the most obvious self-serving hypocrisy I have seen in a long time.

    Is Dr. Richard Carrier PhD now going to marginalize and disown himself? Will he disappear in a puff of smoke?

    Like

    Reply
  15. jimthepleb

    Dr Richard Carrier is not a sad little man who has just hit his mid-life and decided to ditch the woman who supported him through his establishing of his career. Dr Richard Carrier is not a puffed up little Hitler with a superiority complex who believes he speaks for the untermench of the A/S movement. Dr Richard Carrier is not using the weakest of all possible arguments to suggest that his infidelities and sexual peccadilloes should not be judged in the same manner as those of his ideological enemies, as his behaviour is compelled by his ‘disabling’ polyamory rather than their poor impulse control. Dr Richard Carrier is not a self- serving, self aggrandising narcissist, with all the self awareness of a deep fried abalone.
    Dr Richard Carrier IS:
    Brilliant.
    Kind.
    Loving.
    Everything a woman could want.
    Truly enlightened.
    A great big lovely.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  16. Pingback: Dr. Richard Carrier PhD Declares Victory, In Other News, I’m Dating 24-Year-Old Elisha Cuthbert | Orwellian Garbage

  17. cornelll

    I love how Richard acts like he can do no wrong.

    Obvious guy says: YOU basically told your ex-wife that she wasn’t good enough for you, and therefore you need to have open relationships and have sex with other women.

    If you were really into your wife, you wouldn’t need to be satisfied by other women

    This is common sense

    Like

    Reply
  18. cornelll

    I love how Richard acts like he can do no wrong.

    Obvious guy says: YOU basically told your ex-wife that she wasn’t good enough for you, and therefore you need to have open relationships and have sex with other women.

    She wasn’t enough to satisfy you

    Like

    Reply
    1. apologianick

      Sense and Goodness Without God

      For Jen….

      My buxom brunette
      My wellspring of joy
      My north star of sanity.

      Words that I’m sure will touch her every time she sees them now….

      Like

      Reply
  19. corpsepants

    Is this a good place to go on record as being simultaneously repelled by A+, happily involved in BDSM (and related), AND a woman? Honestly, this whole “the anti-A+ people aren’t the type to be invited to group sex parties anyway” bit is the thing that pissed me off. The rest of it doesn’t much concern me.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Brian

    Dr. Carrier, if you are still reading this, I hope you realize how much damage you have done to the mythical Jesus case by your public comments recently. Your personal life may have nothing to do with the arguments in your books, but you have made it 100X harder for anyone recommending your work to get their point across to Christians. Your “dirty laundry” that has been aired recently provides a ready-made excuse for believers to dismiss your work as that of someone who is obviously motivated by a desire to live a “sinful” lifestyle that the Bible would condemn you for. You will be seen as an immoral atheist with a big chip on his shoulder regarding biblical morality, and people will automatically assume your “fringe” position of mythicism is just a desperate attempt to deny the biblical God in order to justify your current lifestyle. The fact that this is false is irrelevant. The damage is done. Your work would likely have been absorbed and taken seriously by far more people in the coming years (and the job of those who agree with you and want to spread your ideas would have been much easier) had you not decided to publicize what should have been a private issue.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. apologianick

      As I have said here, I am a Christian and upfront, I think the mythicist view is crank nonsense. You might as well say the Earth is flat. Still, I agree with what Brian has said here and would advise other Christians to not go this route. Someone could have poor motivations for making an argument or case, but that does not mean the argument or case is false on its own. The data must be addressed on its own. I have been encouraging my fellow apologists when discussing this to not use this as an argument against the mythicist position. (And I say this as one who has read Carrier’s latest book.) Defeat Carrier on the basis of arguments and not motivation. It would be just as wrong to do that as it is I think for atheists to say “Well you just go with Jesus because you feel your faith and you want spiritual comfort.” For some Christians, that could be true unfortunately, but it doesn’t make the position wrong. Positions stand or fall on data, not biases.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
    2. Paul Coddington

      “Your “dirty laundry” that has been aired recently provides a ready-made excuse for believers to dismiss your work as that of someone who is obviously motivated by a desire to live a “sinful” lifestyle that the Bible would condemn you for.”
      More to the point for anyone of any background: why should we waste our time attempting to verify his books are valid scholarship when we can see from his comments here (there and everywhere) and his Atheism+ posts and speeches that his primary mode of thinking is self-serving disingenuous clap-trap?

      Like

      Reply
  21. Commenter

    Hi. I’m one of Richard Carrier’s “lovers”. Hah!

    I’m married. I am a mother.

    My marriage has been open from day one. I told my husband I was poly on the day we met. We would have never gotten married if we didn’t agree this was the lifestyle we wanted. 7 years in and we are even more happily married than when we got started. 🙂

    Husband knew I had sex with Richard the moment I got home from actually doing it. He giggled about it.

    After our kid goes to sleep at night, once every week or two, I go out and spend time doing whatever it is I want to do, which is usually hanging out with my friends, but in Richard’s case, it was sexy fun times. The kid wasn’t wondering where mommy was when I was with Richard, because he was asleep. I also watch our kid when my husband goes out with his friends every couple of weeks. We also have a babysitter occasionally watch our kid while we go out together. Pst… Parents do adult things when their kids are sleeping.

    We also, one day, want our kid to grow up thinking they can have whatever consensual relationship they want. No partners. 5 partners. 0 kids. 7 kids. Monogamy. Non-monogamy. Gay, straight, asexual, and everything in between. As long as they’re ethical, then we support our kid and we want our kid to think that’s the way it should be. People get to create the rules for their own happiness in relationships.

    So no. No broken family from at least this married lady Richard had sex with. Not sure how many others he had sex with or what their stories are, but he sleeps in comfort over our fun times. So does my husband. So do I. The memories are actually pretty cute, including the ones giggling with my husband about it afterward. 😉

    As far as Richard’s infidelity, I had sex with Richard after he was in an open relationship and was not made aware of his past infidelities until he admitted it in his blog and I had always assumed he and his wife arrived at polyamory in a similar way that my husband and I did. I assumed that it was something they both wanted for a while and that they admitted to each other before acting on it.

    Despite this, I don’t think our encounter was immoral, even if he didn’t reveal he cheated on his current wife at some point in the past, because they continued their relationship after that point and were now in a consensual open relationship, and so I do think he gave me the relevant information to make my decision, even if it wasn’t the full and complete history of he and his wife’s past relationship. Everyone involved consented to the encounter, including my husband and Richard’s wife in the form of maintaining open relationships.

    I think it is kind of sad that he discovered he couldn’t be happy without living a poly lifestyle until after he had been married for many years. I think it is sad that he cheated on his wife instead of being honest with her. I was lucky to begin to act on it years before I met my husband. I was able to tell my husband the day I met him so he could reject me if it wasn’t a life he wanted to live.

    I do think that what Richard did, in cheating on his wife, was immoral, but he learned from that mistake and seems very clearly not interested in ever cheating on another human being again, so I’m glad he understands that he did something wrong and that he is changing his behavior to live a more moral life.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Shermertron

      Commenter,

      Congratulations for having experienced Richard Carrier.

      If your account is to be believed (and I have no reason to doubt it), then you haven’t lied to anyone. You and your husband established your boundaries and needs early on and have always been on the same page. It sounds as though you are both very open with regard to who you are having sex with and when and making sure that your child is always cared for.

      I am pleased that you acknowledge that “at least” your encounter with Carrier was conducted in full and complete honesty. You say of the values you are trying to instill in your child: “We also, one day, want our kid to grow up thinking they can have whatever consensual relationship they want. No partners. 5 partners. 0 kids. 7 kids. Monogamy. Non-monogamy. Gay, straight, asexual, and everything in between. As long as they’re ethical, then we support our kid and we want our kid to think that’s the way it should be. People get to create the rules for their own happiness in relationships.” Okay, fantastic.

      But there’s the sticking point. “Ethical.”

      And here’s the part of your comment that is most important to me and my argument: “I do think that what Richard did, in cheating on his wife, was immoral, but he learned from that mistake and seems very clearly not interested in ever cheating on another human being again, so I’m glad he understands that he did something wrong and that he is changing his behavior to live a more moral life.”

      Carrier has not made the kind of mea culpa that his (unnecessary and unprompted) public confession requires. I’m guessing and hoping that he apologized to his wife for the way be betrayed her. Abused her trust. Took advantage of her willingness to support him.

      Have you noticed that Carrier hasn’t even said, “my bad?” When I was five, I stole a toy from my little brother. Wow. That was an asshole thing to do. I regret acting like a piece of shit to someone in my family. I learned from the experience, gaining empathy and now I understand how I made my brother feel and I continually try to avoid inspiring that feeling in anyone else in my life.

      Carrier has made no such statement. He literally declared himself a moral exemplar in atheism and declared that HIS morality was the only one acceptable for the movement. And he said that anyone who disagreed with his moral stance is a misogynist subhuman CHUD. Mind you, he made this speech during the period when he was cheating on his wife. Atheists deserve an acknowledgment on his part that he fucked up. That he betrayed the very beliefs he was trying to enforce upon the rest of us.

      Carrier also used a man’s rumored enjoyment of consensual sex to reinforce a public claim of rape made against the man. (I don’t know how much you know about the atheist community or what has happened.) These statements were made during the very same period he was deceiving his wife. He owes it to everyone he disparaged to acknowledge that he’s a hypocrite and a giant douchebag.

      This is why atheists are criticizing him. Christians may criticize him for his “polyamory,” but we’re upset that he contributed to the fracturing of our movement while engaging in much of the same behavior he decried. I don’t see that he as “learned” from his mistake, as he hasn’t acknowledged his hypocrisy.

      And I’m not even sure he’s changing his behavior aside from the fact that he can’t cheat on his wife because he’s no longer married. Has he made it clear he knows how shitty it is to have sex with married women who are NOT in an open marriage? He’s deflected, ignored or lied about every valid criticism that people have made about him.

      Will he change his behavior with respect to treating skeptics/atheists conferences like a swingers’ party? In case you forgot, Carrier has led the fight against the (fictional) perception that women are not safe at such conferences.

      I am glad you had a fun time with Carrier. Perhaps you (maybe even you and your husband) will cross sexual paths with Carrier again. If that happens, I hope you all enjoy yourselves. Your testimony, while interesting in a way, doesn’t excuse Carrier his gross hypocrisy and self-serving denial of the harm and grief he has caused others.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    2. corpsepants

      Brava to you, commenter. You sound like you’re doing everything right, and you sure as hell don’t need anyone here to tell you that.

      What I’m reading in your comments is not a defense of Carrier at all, but a reaction—understandable—to some unnecessary, and intentionally inflammatory, suggestions that women were abandoning their families to his wiles. Also a clearly well-considered defense of ETHICAL non-monogamy.

      Like I said, you don’t need anyone here to validate that. But I’m posting this just to say I think I know where you’re coming from, before a bunch of people spin off some more about how scandalous it is for wives and mothers to have, as you said, adult lives.

      I have to confess, though, that I’m awfully curious as to how your paths crossed, especially considering his ping-ponging between “atheist conferences aren’t safe for women” (which I take seriously as a woman, atheist, and con attendee) and “there are awesome orgies at atheist conferences, not that YOU people are the type to be invited to them” (which I take personally as a woman, atheist, and con attendee). So, if you want to indulge me, I’d be really grateful. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Shermertron

        Corpsepants,

        I respect your position, but I feel that the suggestion that some of Carrier’s women may have been “abandoning their families to his wiles” is a necessary one. (I’ll give you “intentionally inflammatory.”)

        Carrier has not considered the ramifications of his rhetoric against Shermer. As I’ve exhaustively documented, he reinforced PZ’s claim against Shermer by stating Shermer’s alleged enjoyment of consensual sex serves as evidence for the rape accusations. Shermer got married recently; these accusations–introduced by PZ and reinforced by Carrier–are not exactly questions a man would like to address with a girlfriend or fiancee. Carrier reinforced these claims while deceiving his wife.

        Carrier hitched his star to the Atheism Plus bandwagon, ordering us to stop doing harm to others. He said atheists don’t treat women the way they should. He demanded that people adopt his morality. He demanded that those who decline be pushed from the movement and declared immoral enemies of the state. The hypocrisy doesn’t bug you? He was engaging in adulterous affairs at that very time, some of which were with married women.

        Carrier is in his mid-forties. He’s not Ogvorbis, so I think it’s fair to say that his “dating pool” consists of many women like “commenter.” Grown women who, it’s fair to say, have lives and careers and sometimes have kids and husbands. You really think it’s a stretch that, based upon Carrier’s absolutely shameless and unapologetic account of his betrayal, some of these married grown woman partners have kids and husbands who are in the dark about what was going on?

        Carrier felt it was okay to support the rape allegations against Shermer. These allegations were squirrelly and third-hand and were workshopped on the JREF board over the course of the six years since the incident. Carrier was not working from any of Shermer’s own statements, only rumors about him.

        I, on the other hand, am making reasonable extrapolations from Carrier’s own statements. Carrier’s an unfaithful and unapologetic and narcissistic hypocrite. He admits he’s had sex with married women. The majority of the women in his age range have kids. Are reasonable conclusions based upon a man’s own words less reasonable than those based upon PZ’s bullshit? Seeing as how you asked several fair and interesting questions, I’d love to know your position on the Shermerkraussnyesilverman allegations from Carrier and his friends.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. corpsepants

        In no way do I think this guy’s behavior is all right. I wrote him off (as an atheist) when the CHUD post originally appeared, and ignored him (as an atheist) right up to his AACon speech where he incredulously bleated about how his fellows were being attacked for the SUGGESTION that women are people, whereupon I concluded he’s clearly a liar, because there’s no way he was so stupid to think that was actually what people were reacting to.

        Making any kind of guesses about the circumstances of the women he slept with is none of my business, and not very interesting to me. I understand that you’re using some dramatic devices to underline the sheer sleaziness of it. However, it actually is possible that the other women he’s been with actually didn’t do anything wrong. As our above commenter provided, there are married women—mothers even!—who are still free to fuck whomever they want, and do so ethically (dingdingding) even if it isn’t, say, my bag. (Never been “open” or poly. As a single woman, I am free to fuck. When I tell someone he’s it, he’s it. But as we say, YKINMK.) And whether the women were “in the wrong” or not, doesn’t reflect on whether Carrier was a lying piece of shit. If they were all lying to their long suffering faithful goldenboy children’s fathers, he’s a lying, cheating POS who threw his wife under the bus. If they were all dyed in the wool child-free hippie poly-triads, he’s a lying, cheating POS who threw his wife under the bus.

        So, yes, the hypocrisy is blinding, and not even a teeny tiny bit surprising. Yes, I see the blazing irony in the “skirt chasing” comment(s). I think every public drubbing this knucklehead gets, he’s got coming. Don’t for a second think I was defending him.

        But trying to drag his partners into some muck is unnecessary, obfuscatory, and, what’s that word? Infantalizing? Suggesting the women (were they all women? do we know this?) had no real/ethical choices is something that A+ would do.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Commenter

        Very true. I wanted at least my own voice to be heard since I’m apparently one of those “married women” Carrier was somehow harming. And my husband is some downtrodden man ready to leave me, and my kid is sad and wondering where mommy is. That’s not what my life looks like at all.
        When Carrier says he’s been with married women, I don’t know their stories, but I know mine and mine does not look like that at all.

        We met at a conference. After having fun talking at an after party, we added each other on facebook and he messaged me, “Oh, BTW, I was actually clumsily hitting on you before. (And you totally don’t have to respond to that.)” and I responded. He’s pretty cute in real life.

        I think I understand both being true. I’ve felt cornered by men before and it is always hard to say, “I’m not interested” when people don’t ask if you are interested and just start following you around suddenly. That’s happened to me and I was really uncomfortable.

        On the flip side of that coin though, I’m pretty sure a lot of these people are fuck-buddies and look forward to seeing their fun time sexy friends when they get to these things.

        Had I been invited to an orgy that night, I would have declined.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. corpsepants

        I think “uncomfortable” is a far cry from “unsafe,” and a lot of what’s gotten people’s backs up is that Carrier and others of his band are so quick to equate the two. You already covered it: had you been invited to a group bone-a-thon, you’d have said no, and presumably would have felt fine carrying on about your con (rather than curling into a helpless sobbing mass). And that’s what grown people do, even women. Could it be awkward? Sure, that’s the price you pay for interacting with humans sometimes. And certainly for getting together with fun time sexy friends, which I’d say is worth the (mild) risk.

        Like

      5. elcoolarrow Post author

        Hello commenter, it is good to hear your perspective. Just so you don’t think that Shermertron or I just make up the “married women” thing, that was a claim that Dr. Carrier made himself. In the comments of his Coming out poly post he claimed that her was intimately acquainted with many people who were cheating on their spouses. Obviously that comment did not apply in your case.

        It is interesting to hear that he was awkwardly hitting on you at a conference. While I don’t think that behavior in and of itself is problematic at all, it is interesting to note that Dr. Carrier had emphatically condemned that same behavior. In his piece condemning Michael Shermer, Carrier devoted an entire section to explaing how it is unethical for a person to hit on a person that they do not know in order to have sex with them. It appears we may have another example of hypocrisy on his part,

        Like

      6. Shermertron

        Corpsepants,

        I do apologize if you thought I was under the impression that you were excusing Carrier. I have never asserted that 100% of the women were evil or good. We simply don’t know. I also thought that I made it clear that I don’t care what people do so long as it’s consensual and they’re not cheating. I don’t care what you, as a single woman, do with men or women (or other, who the hell knows), so long as everyone involved–including spouses–are on board.

        I have made clear my justification for hypothesizing that Carrier’s hypocritical, narcissistic and tawdry behavior may have affected unwitting spouses and unaware children. Mothers are indeed “free to fuck.” Mothers are not ethically and morally “free to fuck” while there is deception afoot. Carrier is free to deny. I have given Carrier far more benefit of the doubt and a far more generous reading than he has given Shermer and others, so my conscience is clear.

        Commenter,

        Yes, thanks again for contributing your voice. I have no reason to dispute your account and as I said, things were above board according to your account, so…okay. As I said, I don’t care what adults do above board when no one else is harmed.

        I must, however, point out for what will be the first time of many that Carrier messaging you in hopes of sex was perfectly normal by human standards. But NOT okay by Atheism Plus standards. I’m glad you had a good consensual time. I just wish we in the secular community hadn’t wasted so much goddamn time arguing over a dude who asked Watson for coffee in an elevator. Particularly when the man who claimed that women were being sexualized at atheist conventions was literally proposing sex with at least one woman at atheist conventions.

        Bonus: that same man won’t at least admit the goddamn irony.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Commenter

    It’s very important to note that he very much was not messaging me in hopes of sex and that I actually kept him hanging for a quite a while. He moved very slowly and if “admitting he was hitting on me” after hours of talking to me led to me never answering that message, he would have been fine. In fact, right up until the moment I quite literally took his hand and hopped into bed, he would have basically never made the first move and he never touched me until I touched him.

    Truth be told here is the basic end to the conversation before we had sex:

    Me: “I’m trying to figure out which I would regret more tomorrow, staying and doing something, or leaving having done nothing.”
    Him: “I definitely would never want you to stay if you ever thought you would regret it.”

    The door to leave was wide open and it’s the only reason I stayed at all.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Commenter

      Trust me, the man didn’t do anything wrong here. We laughed and talked for hours before he felt like it was safe enough to send that message and in it, he didn’t really do anything more than say a door was open if I wanted to walk through it, and I wanted to walk through it.

      I never had to walk through it and it never really had to lead to sex. I had every opportunity to say no and was literally told he’d never want me to stay if I didn’t want to stay.

      I wanted to stay. And I’m glad I stayed. I had a great time. 😉

      In my honest opinion, I’ve never felt so not taken advantage of in any brief sexual encounter ever. Period.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Commenter

        Also, I agree with him that hitting on someone you don’t know is not a good idea. If he sent that message before the hours where it was clear we were into each other, I would have thought he was totally creepy.

        I do think it is creepy to have someone hit on me when they don’t know anything about me and I don’t know anything about them. I’m not sure that I don’t think the world would be better if people wouldn’t hit on you before you know who they are and before they already know where your comfort levels are.

        corpsepants, I agree with you that “uncomfortable” and “unsafe” after different things, but I do appreciate the level at which Richard cares about the comfort of women. It’s reflected in the way he treats you when he talks to you face to face. I do agree that if people put in the time to talk to people and understand who they are and what they are comfortable with BEFORE hitting on you, the world would be a better place. It would definitely be better for me. 🙂

        I do think he has a harder time talking with commenters on the internet than he does in face to face encounters. I’ve told him about that, on a specific article of his. He knows the one. Human communication is harder on the internet and he sometimes falls short of the mark. He’s very good at human communication in person.

        Full disclosure, I’m not aware of the Shermertron case at all. I’m not really into atheist blogs. I’ve read maybe two of Richard’s.

        Like

      2. elcoolarrow Post author

        I understand, but I don’t think anyone has alleged that any type of coercion or impropriety of that type by Carrier. What I was pointing out was that Carrier has written an article where he asserted thatthat the mere act of propositioning a woman that one doesn’t know well is unethical. That statement can be found in the hit piece on Michael Shermer that I linked to in my article. I am only taking issue with his hypocrisy(as well as the Dr dishonesty towards his spouse) . I just want it to be clear that I am no way implying that Cartierv did Anything coercive.

        Like

      3. Commenter

        And what I’m saying is that he knew me well enough because we had talked for hours beforehand and I made other things clear, like making it clear I wanted to spend more time with him after the after party. I made that clear well before he sent that message.

        Sorry, the hypocrisy link isn’t there for this one. I can’t speak about the idea of hypocrisy for the other stuff above because I didn’t click all of the links and didn’t read all of the blogs and am not informed on the specifics of the timeline.

        I think the key is that he thinks it is unethical to hit on someone “one doesn’t know well”. I’m not sure you are defining that the same way he would. It is creepy when people who don’t know you at all and don’t know your comfort levels hit on you. He didn’t break that ideal here.

        He knew it was safe to send the message. Honestly, he could have sent it an hour or two before he did. My comfort levels were already fine. He waited way longer than he had to.

        Like

      4. Commenter

        And what I mean is, he waited longer than he had to to send the message. Had the message been “want to have sex?”, I would have walked right out the door. The message, instead, was checking on my comfort if “hitting on me” was occurring, because if “hitting on me” needed to end, he would have ended it. And the “hitting on me” message could have occurred well before it did. Just so we are clear on what I mean here. He checked to see if “hitting on me” was okay AFTER I made it clear I wanted to spend more time with him after the after party. haha

        Like

      5. Commenter

        So important factual timeline:

        * We talked and laughed for hours beforehand.
        * I suggested hanging out more after the after party.
        * He checked to see if hitting on me was okay.
        * I suggested we be alone in his hotel room.
        * Even after we were alone in a hotel room, he still didn’t assume he was going to have sex with me and we just talked and giggled for a while and I asked him all of the questions I wanted to try to figure out if I actually did want to have sex with him or not. The answer might have ended up being no and he knew that and was fine with it.
        * Smiling and giggling over the possibility that I might leave any second and not have sex or even hug the guy even though I suggested being alone in his hotel room while I figured out if I wanted actually wanted to or not was really funny. He’s a good sport. haha

        Yes, he cheated on his wife a few years ago. Yes, when he did that he was being a bad person. Yes, he fails, outside of that, at being perfect.

        In the end though, I honestly think he is *trying* to be a good person. I think he actually cares whether or not he is a “good” person and is disappointed in himself for his own shortcomings once he sees them and acknowledges them to himself. I think he makes an effort to try to see them. I think, regardless of whether or not he comes off as humble enough when he admits his shortcomings, he does attempt to change his behavior and that is a quality I respect in human beings. I don’t respect that he cheated, but I respect that he admitted his shortcoming publicly, and that he seeks a life in which he doesn’t repeat a behavior that hurts someone close to him in that way again.

        Can you quote where he said he slept with married women who were cheating? I really don’t want to go and read all of the comments on that blog. I’m not really a fan of blogs in general, especially the comment sections. 😉

        I think attempting to live up to his ideals has made him a better person now than he was a few years ago. He still falls short of his ideals, but he changes behaviors that he realizes don’t measure up, so he seeks to improve himself and I find that admirable. I would definitely have a problem if he said HE was the ideal because he isn’t, but I’ve just never heard him sound like he thinks HE is the ideal.

        I do think he thinks his ideals are ideal. I think he thinks promoting the idea that we should be striving toward ideals we can’t reach will make us better as a community of humans. I really just don’t think I disagree there. I would disagree if he said he measured up to his ideals, but he just doesn’t really do that.

        Even if he fail sometimes in his approach, and even if he has his own blind spots that have to be pointed out to him from the outside, I still think he’s doing a decent job at being a decent person, even more so now that he’s come out as poly and admitted he was cheating on his wife in the past. He definitely still isn’t the ideal. Honestly, I doubt he ever will be or anyone can be as a human. But he tries to improve himself and he wants a better society. Sometimes, his approaches aren’t the best, but he’s actually a very nice person.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. Commenter

    Hey Yeti, I saw your post on Slymepit. Not cool, mister.

    1. There is no point when a single detail changed here to suit anything. I added more details that I didn’t realize would ever be relevant when I answered corpsepants original question of how things came about. Adding details and changing details are two different things. I’ve never changed a detail.
    2. Richard hasn’t spoken to me since February 19th, when I told him I was proud of him for coming out and gave him permission to talk about me, but told him he wasn’t to use my name.
    3. I did an internet search to see how the fall out from his poly article may go and slymepit came up with a link to this article, which was really annoying because it included “married women”.
    4. I’ve made no claim as to whether Richard is a hypocrite or not. I made only claims of my own experiences with him, in which he was not. I have no interest in reading a bunch of blogs he’s written or you’ve written or anyone has written. I hate blogs.
    5. I thought I might end up on slymepit from this, which is why I saw your comment. Nice way to try to be a coward. If you think I have said anything factually incorrect, you are a silly person.

    I can see why he gets really upset from commenters. It’s hard to calm your amygdala when people get facts wrong.

    Like

    Reply
    1. elcoolarrow Post author

      So if I understand you correctly, you have no interest in fully reading the article that you are commenting on, nor are you interested in reading the linked articles to see what I am talking about, but.you will look on an obscure internet forum, to see if this article is being talked about. That totally seems plausible! . I think it is pretty apparent what your motivations are for posting here.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Commenter

        I guess you weren’t understanding me correctly.

        1. I hate reading blogs, especially the comment sections. I’ve read 2 of Carrier’s blogs, ever, one of which was his poly/cheating blog.
        2. I googled about Carrier’s poly/cheating blog this week because I’ve been worried about him being openly poly. That can be a rough life. I hide my own polyamory. I wanted to see what he might face as being openly poly as a consideration over whether that will ever be a direction I take with my own life.
        3. I read this blog, top to bottom.
        4. I didn’t read your links about Shermer and don’t want to because I’m not a fan of blogs and I don’t think it relates to my concern for Richard’s well-being after writing his poly/cheating blog or my desire to know if I should be openly poly myself, which is the point of reading this blog in the first place.
        5. I read slymepit for the last maybe ten pages on their NERDS thread after it came up in my google search.

        Guess what, not liking to read comments and blogs and not reading them ever are two different things. Also, slymepit is not the only place I read on the topic and this is not the only blog I read in relation to this topic either. I opened a few posts after I googled it and read a few blogs. This one was the one that attacked me in a way that got under my skin in the lumped “married women”, but you’ve changed that and said you only meant “married women who were cheating on their spouses”. That doesn’t relate to me any more.

        My motivations in commenting were originally to defend myself and only myself, but after people used my comments to attack Richard without all of the timeline and information, it became to defend Carrier’s actions specifically in relation to the way he was with me.

        Since I was here after that point, I decided to finally post a comment on my own interpretation of his actions and thoughts, from my own perspective of knowing him in real life, which is that I think he’s nice, attempts to live up to ideals, but fails and is sometimes not aware he’s failing.

        Anything else? I’ll keep checking for another day or something and after that, I probably won’t google his poly stuff again. I’m kind of contented by the idea that what many might consider the underbelly of the internet when it comes to atheism (slymepit), isn’t actually attacking my interaction with him. If not, okie dokie. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  24. Jan Steen

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think polyamory refers to having intimate relationships with two or more people simultaneously, where all involved know about and approve of those relationships.

    The behaviour here reported by “Commenter” looks more like what is colloquially known as having a one night stand. Why call it polyamory when there is no actual relationship?

    Dr. Richard Carrier PhD censured Shermer for allegedly hitting on women he didn’t know long enough. We have now learned that Dr. Carrier PhD has one night stands with women he meets at conferences, after chatting them up for a couple hours. It looks as if he is just as much a “sexual predator” (as the SJWs would call him) as any other womaniser. He just cleverly adapts his modus operandi to the kind of women who don’t like a direct approach. And he has the temerity to deny that he’s a hypocrite.

    But he is. He is the worst kind of hypocrite: the self-righteous, preacher kind who doesn’t practice what he preaches. Remember? According to Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, Atheism Plus stands for “reasonableness, compassion, and integrity”, and if you are not on board with the values of Atheism Plus you are in his eyes a CHUD (a kind of monster that dwells in sewers). Well, his denial of being a hypocrite shows that he is not reasonable; his cheating on his wife and blogging about it shows that he lacks compassion; and his hypocrisy demonstrates that he has no integrity. In short, he is a CHUD himself, by his own standards.

    Not that it’s a huge surprise to watch his downfall. Show me a sanctimonious demagogue, and ten to one that s/h/it’s a massive hypocritical scumbag.

    One piece of the puzzle is still missing. “Commenter” did not clarify all circumstances. How much did she and Carrier have to drink? All that giggling she mentions makes me fear the worst.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Commenter

      in·ti·mate
      in(t)əmət/
      adjective
      adjective: intimate

      1. closely acquainted; familiar, close.
      2. private and personal.

      re·la·tion·ship
      rəˈlāSH(ə)nˌSHip/
      noun
      noun: relationship; plural noun: relationships

      the way in which two or more people or organizations regard and behave toward each other.

      Yep. One night stands are regarded as “intimate relationships” in a poly lifestyle. Sex is private and personal way in which two people behave toward each other.

      But, Carrier and I have exchanged many messages since then, sometimes several in a month, sometimes none for a couple of months. One night stands don’t involve a friendship afterward, much less for an extended period of time, so you’ve improperly characterized our particular “intimate relationship” anyway.

      Notice all of those smiley and winky faces I put in my typing and “haha”s? That’s when I’m talking to someone who has repeatedly been pretty not nice to me. Imagine how I might be around someone who is very nice to me. If you ever met Carrier, you’d know he is a giggler too.

      Like

      Reply
  25. Jan Steen

    To be clear who we are dealing with when we are talking about Dr. Richard Carier PhD, he is the delightful chap who wrote this:

    In short, if you reject this value statement [that you endorse the values of reasonableness, compassion, and integrity, JS], you are simply my ideological enemy, and I will give you no quarter. I’ll respect your legal and human rights, because I believe in that. But don’t be shocked if I am not friendly.

    This includes if you mock or make fun of Atheism+ or belittle it with stupid dumb-ass shit like calling it Stalinism. That makes you an asshole. Point blank. Plain and simple. We are simply not going to let the Atheism movement become like chat roulette (a point well made in How Not to Build Inclusive Communities).

    The rest of this post deals with other, more specific confusions over just what Atheism+ is all about, and who we are chucking into the sewers and shaking the dust off our sandals at.
    (…)
    Anyone who does not call themselves a member of Atheism+ but thumbs up what it stands for is a friend of Atheism+. Those people are with us. Everyone else (who doesn’t cheer or approve of what we stand for) is against us.

    Note how the pronouns shift from “I” to “we” (“I will give you no quarter”, “who we are chucking into the sewers”). Note how at first all you have to do to be on the right side (“with us”) is to endorse the values of “reasonableness, compassion, and integrity”, but how a few sentences later “mocking Atheism+” is also verboten. This is a perfect example of a motte and bailey doctrine. After all, who would be against “reasonableness, compassion, and integrity”? No decent person, right? But then, by the way, you also have to accept 3rd wave feminism, the existence of rape culture, “shut up and listen”, “check your privilege”, “cis het white men blah blah blah”, and “always believe the victim”. Because, as those who have watched the A-plussers in action will know, these things and many more are all implied by “reasonableness, compassion, and integrity.” And don’t you dare to make fun of Atheism+. That would get you excommunicated as fast as you could say “Stalinism”.

    Excommunicated by whom? By “us”. Who is “us”? That would be “we”: Dr. Richard Carrier PhD and his cronies, who get to decide who can be kicked into the sewers for the crime of mocking Atheism+ or whatever.

    This is the disgusting little creep who we are talking about.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2412

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
    1. Tigzy

      ‘But don’t be shocked if I am not friendly.’

      You know, it amazes me that Dickie can actually assume people might be shocked at this, rather than be thoroughly amused.

      To me, it just brings to mind the image of a flustered conference-goer exclaiming, ‘I-I’ve just been accosted by an ill-tempered hobbit with an erection!’

      (An erection, one might add, whose length would be decidedly average for a Shirefolk male)

      Like

      Reply
  26. Jan Steen

    Thanks for replying, Commenter. You and I have different ideas about what a relationship entails. I don’t condemn you for it, but I don’t see how the label “polyamory” by your definition is anything else than a euphemism for “fucking around”. I would have said that “love” had something to do with it too.

    But you remain curiously silent about the role of alcohol.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Steersman

      Jan:

      Given her lack of interest in reading blogs and, if I’m not mistaken, her lack of interest in the “atheist movement”, I expect her “silence on the role of alcohol” is probably due to her not being aware that, in the rather bizarre calculus of AtheismPlus and the Social Justice Warrior crowd, alcohol+sex=rape. No ands, ifs or buts.

      But given that “Commenter” was the one who apparently took the final initiative by taking Carrier by the hand and leading him to the bed, one looks forward to him following PZ Myer’s papal encyclical to always “name names”. 😉

      Like

      Reply
      1. Jan Steen

        Steersman,

        Or maybe she prefers to remain silent about it precisely because she knows that reporting on the use of alcohol can only make Carrier look even worse. Rumours about Shermer’s use of alcohol were enough for Carrier to produce a pompous and ponderous hit piece in which he suggested that the man was probably one of two things: a rapist or a sleaze.

        What if we would learn that Carrier not only likes to hang around with women at conferences, hoping for some polyamorous action, but also drinks alcohol with them? The hypocrisy on display in his hit piece would be even more outrageous than it already is.

        Like

  27. Luckygal

    I too have had the good fortune to have been a bedmate of Dr. Richard Carrier, phd, and am in no way a sock puppet account of Dr. Richard Carrier, phd.
    Besides his exemplary ethics, prodigious intellect, and profound knowledge of philosophy; I just wanted to educate any women readers out there of his outstanding abilities as a lover. He is a caring and gentle lover, exceeding mortal men in endowment, stamina, and steely tumescence. But what was most impressive was his ability to use Bayes’ Theorem to prove to me afterwards that I had had multiple orgasms!
    I did not leave my husband and child for him, though I wouldn’t hesitate to if he would have me in his harem.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  28. abear

    I think it is clear that Commenter just hasn’t read Feminism 101. If and when she does that, or if she maybe educates herself by watching some Rebecca Watson videos, perhaps she will realize that she was the victim of a sexual predator who used his position of power as a speaker and then hovering around her as she was drinking to wait for the right time to make his move.
    As anyone that follows the criminal behavior of famous and almost famous atheists knows, sometimes it takes years for womyn to realize they have been a victim of a crime against femalekind.:-)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  29. jetlagg

    Appreciate you taking the time to show up and share your story, Commenter. I’ll join the others is clarifying I have no problem with polyamory and can find no fault in anything you or Carrier did together. I do want you to keep in mind that, just as you have an impression of Carrier after dealing with him in person for some time, the rest of us have an impression of Carrier after dealing with him online for some time. The guy has caused no small amount of harm to a community we hold dear, and that should go a long ways toward explaining any animosity you’re perceiving. Your statements about him being a shitty communicator online are almost certainly accurate (it’s not the first time I’ve heard someone who met him in person say this), but not particularly relevant if you’re hoping we’ll to argue we should go easier on him. No doubt many of the people you’d consider “creepy” are merely shitty at communicating in person, and that’s before we get into the fact different individuals have different concepts of acceptable behavior vis a’ vis flirting (if I’d asked my wife for permission to flirt with her, it’s very, very doubtful we’d be together today). Despite this fact, Carrier would have us condemn those people in the harshest of terms. It’s another example of hypocrisy, albeit one less easily detected.

    Like

    Reply
  30. Jan Steen

    Here are two of the photos featuring Dr. Richard Carrier PhD holding a glass that probably doesn’t contain ginger ale.


    These photos are from ReAsonCon One, an event held from Friday, May 2, 2014 to Sunday, May 4, 2014 in Hickory, NC.

    The dark-haired woman is Tracie Harris. She’s a “member of the Atheist Community of Austin and regularly hosts and co-hosts on the Atheist Experience TV show and the Godless Bitches podcast.”

    http://www.eventbrite.com/e/reasoncon-one-tickets-10258075179

    This was part of the programme:

    2:30 pm- 5:00 pm Richard Carrier
    5:00 pm- 7:00 pm Dinner Break
    7:00 pm- 2:00 am After party/dance

    VIP tickets cost $100, but here’s what they gave access to:

    VIP Dinner with Premium Open Bar (Includes Saturday Event)
    Join your hosts Cash & Love for this exclusive VIP dinner and fun. Admits one for the VIP dinner and music. PLUS!!!! 2 hours of unlimited drinking from the open bar. Admit One (Includes Saturday Event ) Friday May 2nd, 2013 9PM till…

    This booze fest sounds like the ideal habitat for the polyamorous conference speaker. Two hours of unlimited drinking from the open bar? Try to remain sober in the face of a temptation like that! But just imagine, as a thought experiment, that it was not Dr. Carrier PhD, but Michael Shermer in those photos. Can there be any doubt that they would immediately have become Exhibit #1 in the kangaroo court of FreethoughtBlogs?

    Like

    Reply
  31. WHERE AT ATHEIST

    Thank you Richard Carrier for clearing that up and being accountable.
    I hate it when extremists do hetero-shaming.

    Unfortunately, your defense sounds like something that rapists at SDSU have used when they have attempted to abduct and rape women on campus. There is no such thing as “hypenated rape”. RAPE IS RAPE.

    Marijuana makes people violent. We saw that with the Florida face-eater and the more controversial Zimmerman incident. They should have arrested the shooters for their illegal abuse of medication before going into all of those violent rampages that cost the lives of innocent people. #Lives_matter.

    There is no difference between sexual harassment and flirting; In both cases, apologies should be offered [Something that it appears that you have already done]. Also being drunk is the opposite of consent.
    Sex can be equivilant to rape if she wanted a long term relationship and instead ended up as a one night stand to a “black book” that she did not know about. Calling yourself poly-amourous demands equal attention to all members and communication between all people involved. If there is dead silence, then that makes you no different from the Muslim radicals and their chained harems.

    I hate Dawkins for a different reason but leave him and Jason Frye out of this.

    Hotel parties are a private matter. Why discuss them at all? There is a huge difference between a private party and a advertized public display of debauchery that is later noted in a public article. Of course women are entitled to their right to throw private parties as well. I know that this is your way of responding to that psycho who is probably too illiterate to even read your apology, but the tempo of your message sounds almost distractionary.

    I do not know what happened to Rebecca Watson but if it was anything that you described then I agree that such a activity is awful. My idea of flirtation involves sharing my number and waiting for a call-back that includes a notary signature from all involved to prevent false claims like this from having any legal ground in the 1st place. I am explicitly against alcohol and smoking of ay sort. My dead-pan seriousness guarantees that everyone around me is so unaroused that they can only feel nothing but contempt against me.
    ____________________________________________
    Here are my notes from the second article[
    Starting with notes on the link you provided]:

    “I do think that what Richard did, in cheating on his wife, was immoral, but he learned from that mistake and seems very clearly not interested in ever cheating on another human being again, so I’m glad he understands that he did something wrong and that he is changing his behavior to live a more moral life.”

    I agree with you that this guy named “Shermertron” is a complete moron who seems to often call apon the name of a deity, even in insults. There is no way that any atheist would ever declare themselves as “the only acceptable (‘Exemplar’) when it comes to morality”.

    I actually got banned from a atheist event because I confronted poly-amourous atheists who actually are unaccountable. Fortunately, I can immediately tell that you are not one of them.

    I laughed the hardest when “Shermertron”‘s sock puppet account by the name of “CuckedbyCarrier” talked about Semen. We all know that “Shermertron” is too incompetant to talk a women into letting his clumsy tongue anywhere near her.

    Remembering #CharlieHebdo, it’s important to not take a movement so seriously that people end up getting hurt.
    That is what this cry-baby by the name of “Jan Steen” is hissing about. [I have reposted this at Facebook]

    Like

    Reply
  32. Jan Steen

    Dr. Richard Carrier PhD has written two (two!) long, self-serving responses on his blog about the criticisms by Shermertron and The Yeti.

    Let’s have a look at some of his assertions. Here’s Carrier about flirting:

    Even in the worst case scenario, after all that we can accidentally slightly cross a line (not hugely, just slightly…the flirtation ladder is about ensuring every step is small, for precisely that reason) and then back up and apologize and lay off. That’s how ethical sexuality works. What happened to Rebecca Watson? That. Was. None. Of. Those. Things.

    (Nor is it anything anyone classified as harassment, BTW. Conflating that account, of her only saying what made her uncomfortable, with completely unrelated discussions of harassment, is also part of anti-feminist mythology.)

    Here is what Carrier wrote on an earlier occasion about Watson’s Elevator Ordeal:

    Rebecca Watson never once called the elevator incident harassment. It was the haters who made that up to discredit her, to paint her as calling it harassment, “gosh isn’t that ridiculous!” So don’t buy into the rhetoric of the sexist wing of atheism. In actual fact all she did was tell guys not to do that and why. And there is no sexual harassment policy I know of that prohibits what happened–since the man in question was not vulgar and accepted her refusal and no harassment ensued.

    In other words, the man in question slightly crossed a line (not hugely, just slightly…the flirtation ladder is about ensuring every step is small, for precisely that reason) and then backed up and laid off (although we don’t know if he apologized, or even existed).

    So when Carrier writes “What happened to Rebecca Watson? That. Was. None. Of. Those. Things.” he is lying for effect. It’s self-serving bullshit to make his own flirting look more benign, even when he too crossed a line. Self-serving bullshit of which there is more to come.

    Before I come to that, let’s first consider the point about calling the elevator incident harassment. Dr Carrier PhD wants us to believe that this rhetoric is “part of anti-feminist mythology” and that “it was the haters who made that up to discredit her.”

    Ironically, Dr. Carrier PhD is here characterising honest to goodness SJWs like PZ Myers and Adam Lee as anti-feminist haters. Because both gentlemen have referred to the elevator incident as harassment. Unlike Carrier, I make it a point to provide evidence, so here it is.

    PZ Myers wrote:

    And poor little Richard Dawkins is muzzled? After whining that American women ought to hush up about getting fondled in the workplace or harassed in an elevator, because they’re so well off compared to women in the patriarchal cultures of the Middle East, he’s claiming victimhood as a wealthy outspoken opinionated man, because people criticize him?

    Adam Lee wrote:

    as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation.

    Recall that Richard Dawkins’s “Dear Muslima” letter made fun of the kerfuffle about the elevator incident. Adam Lee here suggests that the latter was a case of sexual harassment.

    So, take note PZ Myers and Adam Lee. According to Dr. Carrier PhD you are anti-feminist haters who are out to discredit Rebecca Watson. Or maybe Carrier is just lying again? Nah, can’t be.

    Now for some more self-serving BS. Carrier believes he has a full-proof argument against the accusation that he was a hypocrite for discussing and criticizing the alleged behaviour of Michael Shermer. Dr. Carrier PhD claims that he never suggested that Shermer should be criticized for womanizing and cheating. After all, Carrier had written the following in the same piece in which he tried to argue that Shermer was probably either a sleaze or a rapist.

    If that were all there were to this story, I would not be troubled by it. Consensual sex, even cheating, is not anyone’s doom. What one does sexually does not (contrary to pop politico psychology) indicate a general dishonesty or unreliability in other matters, or entail you’re a bad person, or make you unlikable or untrustworthy. Or dangerous. Or disgusting. Or any negative stereotype attached to expressions of human sexuality, even the sneaky kind. (This has nothing to do with opposing sex.)

    Consider that Carrier wrote this after he himself had cheated on his own wife, in other words, after he was guilty of exactly the same behaviour that he had just depicted with Michael Shermer starring as the bad guy. Rather than reading this paragraph as condoning Shermer’s alleged womanizing and cheating, I read it as a self-serving apology of Carrier’s own behaviour. When he wrote his hit piece about Shermer he must have realized that he could just as well be criticized for picking up women for one night stands at conferences and for cheating. I see the text here cited mainly as an attempt to justify his own behaviour.

    Carrier actually wants to have it both ways. He wants to paint Shermer as a vile womanizer and a cheat, as a prelude to characterizing him as being either a sleaze or a rapist, and at the same time Carrier wants to whitewash his own, similar transgressions.

    Just read how Carrier describes Shermer’s alleged behaviour at conferences:

    The details involved alcohol. Given things others have said online (revisit the timeline), it’s possible Shermer has a habit of getting women drunk and having sex with them (or trying to). Several people online claim to have witnessed his skirt-chasing in general (even propositioning a married woman while her husband was elsewhere in the same room) and evidence of his propensity to have multiple simultaneous ongoing affairs (some of which one source claims his wife eventually became aware and was looking online for others…I don’t know if Shermer and his wife are still married). I’ve been hearing other rumors like this for years, so this isn’t a suddenly new thing. It’s just spilling out into public now.
    You can review all there is and draw your own conclusion. This is only my own judgment. But the preponderance of evidence (a civil court burden, whereby a claim need only have a better than 50% chance of being true, so even just a 50.1% chance of being true would win a case) is enough for me to conclude that the general picture is probably true: Shermer pursues sex with women a lot, both one-night stands and ongoing affairs, and he has often enough done so without telling his wife or his various girlfriends.

    Note the negativity implied by the wording. When Carrier does it it is “polyamory”, when Shermer does it it is “skirt-chasing”. Double standards, meet Dr. Carrier.

    Oh, and folk who frown upon cheating and are worried about STIs? Sex-negative prudes, according to the good doctor.

    Dr. Carrier PhD can deny all he wants that he is not a hypocrite. It’s exactly what he is.

    The remainder of his two prolix posts against Shermertron and The Yeti are largely a tedious litany of ad hominems. I can’t be bothered to deal with those.

    One hopes that his “peer reviewed” research is of higher standard in terms of intellectual honesty and evidence-richness than this self-serving apologetics.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  33. Ash

    Having skipped over most of this post, but to reply to commenter from several weeks back,

    With respect for your husband, and sincerely wishing the two of you and your family lead happy and enriched lives together, when you write he giggled on news you slept with Richard, well, that’s not doing the image you wish to portray of your husband as not downtrodden nor of the image of your husband as your equal in the relationship.

    There are terabytes of tumblr sites dedicated to the humiliation, cuckolding of men, most of which start with

    “Husband knew I had sex the moment I got home and told him. He giggled about it…”

    Like

    Reply
  34. Rejecting the tyranny of conformity

    Ok. I have read most of this. It is long and informative. And shocking. And rather sad. And disappointing.
    I would like to thank all that have tried to clarify matters and explain the different perspectives.
    I am one of the people who have regarded Richard Carrier as a god of some sort. And in NT Studies, he still stands quite tall. And that is the area we have exchanged emails on and he has been very helpful to me in helping me clarify things and pointing me to definitive sources on issues. Being a Kenyan operating from Kenya, you can imagine how much scope a graduate from Columbia University has in terms of access and exposure to information sources. Richard has been an asset to me even though over the years, my interest in the subject of historical Jesus has waned considerably.
    I started admiring Carrier when I was in my late twenties. I liked his clarity of thought, his writing style, his dynamism and courage and mental stamina. Among other things, I admired how he handled the Antony Flew recanting incident, how he popularized the Jesus Myth Hypothesis and elevated it in scholarly circles and in the public eye and my thinking has always resonated with his on several issues.
    I am a 39 year old now with two kids and I have recently been enjoying reading his book on the Historicity of Jesus, which I consider excellent by all accounts.

    I have been reading his blog on the same topic but have found his aggressive and even manic interest with Atheism+ and Femininism and his attacks on Shermer and Carrier rather bizarre and creepy. And I have been concerned. But those topics hardly interest me. But I have often found his position on them radical, servere, unbalanced and I personally find topics like Femininism and Atheism + rather namby-pamby, useless and irrelevant in the wider scheme of things. And I personally consider them a waste of such a potent intellectual asset as Richard’s brain and training. He might as well study break-dancing or masturbation.
    That he has been unfaithful to his wife and labeling promiscuity “polyamory” has really disappointed me. You would expect that someone who has a knowledge of evolution would have a more practical understanding of why we want to screw every other attractive person. Indeed, it is exactly because of our polyamorous nature that we exchange vows and wear wedding bands. So that we thwart our own basic instincts (pun intended). It is exactly because polyamory leads to broken families, hurt, conflicts and unmet needs that monogamy is preferred. Most people are polyamorous that is why marriage is hard work and needs commitment. To delude himself that he is somehow unique, and is “coming out” is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.
    To see this nonsense come from someone I respect is very saddening. Its like “coming out” as someone who loves food. Polyamorous Really? Give us a break.

    As many have rightly observed, he should keep his private life to himself. Nobody gives a fuck who he screws or how many people he screws. And it is selfish for him to expose his marital issues to the whole world and make them a topic of discussion. That is disrespectful to the privacy of his wife as many have pointed out. It actually stigmatizes his wife and he refuses to take responsibility.

    On Dawkins, I think Dawkins is a product of his time (he has his biases and blind spots) and it is simply creepy and uncharitable to go after him the way Pz and Carrier have – on controversial issues that are not clear-cut (cultural influences), as much as Carrier and Pz want them to seem so.
    The same applies to Shermer. Anyone who feels raped should report to the police, not discuss with bloggers. Unless…you guessed it…they don’t have evidence!
    I think Carrier has lost his way. If I was to advise him, I would say he takes a long break from all this nonsense and reevaluate his wife. This polyamory nonsense is childish, selfish and irresponsible.
    I do agree 100% he is hypocritical. He is mean-spirited and uncharitable and vindictive. That is how he has treated Shermer and Dawkins. It is particularly disappointing how he still feels he can stand in judgement and be very certain on questionable incidents he was not a witness to like Shermers.
    I had Sense and Goodness Without God in my bucket list. I have now crossed it out as I watch my role model dig in and defend the indefensible.
    Very disappointed.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  35. Pingback: Atheist Richard Carrier, who divorced his wife to go polyamorous, seeks new sex partner | Wintery Knight

  36. Pingback: Poly Atheist Writer Tries To Use His Atheist Blog to Get a Date | Leadingchurch.com

  37. Daniel

    Notwithstanding an individual’s personal failings, a person’s academic research stands on its own merits. I esteem Carrier’s work because it is good work and so far, i think, has not been subject to serious challenge. I hope it continues to be read and used to further improve our understanding of the birth and growth of Christianity.. It certainly has been useful to me to defend my atheism. So thank you Richard, and thank you Jen for supporting Richard in his research. As to the moral worth of Mr. Carrier, its really none of my business and I don’r care, except for the fact that it may appeal to some of my purient interests (lol). Seriously, everyone slips, stumbles and falls, We all, unless we are incredibly disciplined, will fail in our lives. and we pick up the pieces as best we can. I was brought up to know that the only perfect person was Jesus. Lol. And, considering he has a somewhat God-like presence on the Athiest stage,it would not surprise me that he has groupies and folllowers. Celebrities have their temptations. Regardless, i wish Dr. Carrier the best, I hope is able to continue to participate and be a leader in this collective movement. i truly believe that his contribution is long lasting and valuable– it will make its way into the mainstream of thought and give the growing number of people who identify themselves as non religious a strong reason to be.

    Like

    Reply
    1. corpsepants

      I agree that it’s none of our business, and I wish he’d left it that way. There are plenty of sites for swingers or poly or whatever to post about their exploits, look for dates, etc., and I wish he’d done that there instead of attaching it to his professional work. Not that I think sexuality is shameful, but there’s a time and place for everything. (I myself write for several publications under several nyms not out of shame, but for the sake of focus.)

      Of course, the main reason people reacted so strongly to this admission of his isn’t the admission itself. It’s the hypocrisy. It’s always the hypocrisy.

      (“God-like presence” though. lolololol)

      Like

      Reply
    2. franc

      //As to the moral worth of Mr. Carrier, its really none of my business and I don’r care, except for the fact that it may appeal to some of my purient interests (lol). Seriously, everyone slips, stumbles and falls, We all, unless we are incredibly disciplined, will fail in our lives.//

      Right. You’re talking about the clown who, with jackboots squeaking and Wagner in the background, proclaimed –

      “There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all (I mean people like these and these).” [https://archive.is/Zn1LG]

      I guess it is no longer fashionable to hate Jews or niggers, so he declared open season on atheists who still practice the heresy of ‘skepticism’ and refuse to drink the freefromthoughtblogs Kool-aid. And you find this behaviour ‘acceptable’. I guess its all fine and dandy until they come for you.

      Your attitude is precisely why social justice warriors are able to undermine and corrupt communities pretty much everywhere now.

      Like

      Reply
  38. Keyra

    I always wondered why he had such a hard-on for the Christ Myth Theory – which almost entirely thrives on arguments from the early 1900s that have been repeatedly debunked (and most notably, the argument from silence) – now I know why. Being a compulsive adulterer and a narcissistic hedonist, then blogging about it (and to have no qualms about it). His case against Jesus’ existence has always been crap, as opposed to the near-unanimous consensus confirming Jesus’ existence. If he put as much effort into the existence of, let’s say, Socrates, Alexander, and Qin Shi Huang, he’d come to the same conclusion…but their legacies are long gone and clearly aren’t a threat to him, unlike Jesus’ message. He’s far past hubris. Denying Jesus’ divinity is understandable, but denying his existence is clearly an emotional issue. Which would explain why not a single mythicist I’ve come across (and I’ve tried politely debating with many…which is like debating young earth creationists), was ever kind, sincere, or even remotely friendly. Even if one is even a die-hard dogmatic atheist, it shouldn’t even matter whether Jesus lived or not, since Christianity is already meaningless if he didn’t rise from the dead. No, his immoral lifestyle has no bearing on whether or not he’s right about Jesus (which he’s just about as credible as a Holocaust denier, no matter how professional), just figured out why he’s so passionate about his lost case, which is plain obviously not out of sincerity. What better way for such a man to make a name for himself, then try to erase the most famous and influential person who ever lived (and who stands for everything he hates), from history?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  39. Pingback: God and Man at #Skepticon: Atheist @RichardCCarrier Gets Banned : The Other McCain

  40. Pingback: God and Man at #Skepticon: Atheist @RichardCCarrier Gets Banned | Living in Anglo-America

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