BeerCan writes to me that he’s basically going to respond anyway.
So rather than block and ignore BeerCan like my better judgement tells me to I will be giving christianity’s insung hero his big opportunity to show the world how stupid christians are. ElijiahT has already shown us how dishonest and misleading christians are, let’s see how well a christian does without lying, or deflecting and actually using just evidence and facts.
So right off the bat the next day Beercan sends me a link.
Well isn’t that surprising that this is a response to a DIFFERENT article then the one that he said he was going to respond to in the first place? Funny that.
Instead of responding to THIS article that he said he would:
He responds to this one for some bizarre reason:
The article he responds to is where I expose the “evidence” of Jesus outside of the bible and before the second century apologists present. I expose as both meaningless and fraudulent because I’m tired of seeing it pop up and used as evidence when it isn’t.
So here is BeerCan’s ramblings and self-deluded points if you actually read his article, or care to:
Let’s see what his wonderful rebuttals are as christianity’s new greatest champion….
Well he seems to have already done half my job for me it seems because he’s also mimicked my wonderful bullet style the deflecting christians talk to me so much about. Makes things so much easier and clearer to destroy and dissect.
Let’s address some of his points.
1) I never said I was a historian, but thanks for bringing that up BeerCan.
– I do however give some credit to EVIDENCE of historians AND of historians themselves.
– Historical records and historical evidence and research are pretty easily available BeerCan, it’s just a simple matter of looking with your keyboard.
a) As for your buddy Bart Ehrman well let’s hear what your self admitted agnostic, hero says about how credible and historical the gospels are:
Please do give that a watch will you?
Do note the multiple times he refers to the gospels and NT as non-historical and non-reliable.
b) Also, BeerCan, why would you say I have beliefs when you know I’m an Atheist?
– What exacty do I believe in again?
2) Ok, you say something here about how much I “love to use Youtube”.
– Yeah youtube is great isn’t it?
– Still not sure what your point was, or why you brought that up.
3) Ok this next part had me wonder why you even wrote this:
“BB(s)J seems to believe that rhetoric and random thoughts equal arguments”
Ok Beercan here’s a thought…
– How about redefining what this even means? I have no idea.
– How about some examples that don’t look like pointless name calling?
– Do you even know what your point, or what you’re trying to say here is?
4) You then said “If it doesn’t make sense to BB(s)J is can’t and doesn’t make sense at all and MUST at all costs be discarded.”
– That’s funny, because I thought I was simply listing how and why things were meaningless, unreliable and not evidence here? Simple listing of history here.
– I can’t help that Beercan knows that I think “Jesus sacrificing himself to save us from himself because Jesus needed to kill himself, even though he’s omnipotent, unless something is made of iron, like a chariot wheel, because a talking snake and 2 people defied all evidence of evolution and they ate an apple, because it was a special magic apple, that god knew they would eat anyway, but decided to give women periods and labor pain and torture their grandchildren for thousands of years because he’s so forgiving and loving and let’s not forget morally superior and a supreme being who cures leprocy by cutting birds heads off and splattering their blood on people.”
– Does BeerCan expect me to just stop thinking this makes no sense? Kinda hard.
5) Ok, so more of BeerCan’s rambling. Let’s simply go down the list and not leave anything out.
– You ramble on again about my “belief” again which I don’t have.
– I actually don’t get the final say about “evidence” as you say Beercan, it’s simply defined like this:
> Is it an outside source of the bible?
> Is it in the 2nd century, or 1st, or much closer to our time?
> Was it a forgery?
> Is it common knowledge that it’s not credible by multiple scholars and thoroughly researched sources?
> Is it rationally non-credible by even the stupidest human being on the planet?
– Oh here’s a great comment that says you haven’t even read the article yet and are critiquing as you go for the first time.
– So all the insults and swearing towards me were done why again then if you hadn’t read anything? Well this is making you look brilliant BeerCan. Good job.
Oh, okay, so now we get to BeerCan’s response to what I wrote….
– So far another pointless use of the word “rhetoric” again for no reason (BeerCan’s trademark). He loves the word “rhetoric”. He really does.
“Now, what does BB(s)J think of non-theists such as Bart Ehrman who IS a historian and DOES study ancient history as a profession and says, “No SERIOUS historian believes that Jesus DIDN’T exists.”
– Well I do believe I showed how Bart Ehrman thought about how the gospels and NT are not historically reliable didn’t I?
– The fact that Ehrman actually has an interest and benefit from saying that Jesus was a real historical person is something to consider.
– The fact that Bart gives no sources of WHY, or WHAT makes him think Jesus was a historical person after saying “nothing about the gospels and NT are historically reliable” make me curious if it’s anything other than his opinion, which he gives after publicly admitting he is an agnostic and often said to be an Atheist.
– When you actually think about it really the “existence” of historical Jesus is about as beneficial to the people in Lochness that people believe in Nessie so the tourism industry there will benefit.
– As for how many serious scholars don’t believe Jesus existed, there are several and why wouldn’t there be?
Here’s just a few:
Dr. Rod Blackhirst
Robert R Cargill
There’s countless others who don’t also.
I also wanted to add that many scholars are corrupted by brainwashing and merely give Jesus’s existence on opinion only and biased reasoning.
– Let’s all please await BeerCan’s telling us what evidence Bart Ehrman has said about the evidence of Jesus. I’m sure he has so much of it.
– If BeerCan is referring to Paul’s letters then let’s just remind ourselves of a few things…
> There are no originals of Paul’s letters in the entire 1st century, only copies of copies done in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and closer to our time.
> The entire article I wrote was about how there isn’t any evidence of Jesus outside of the bible and not in the entire 1st century. Paul’s letters are not outside of the bible.
> BeerCan is basing the entire existence of Jesus off of one man (Paul) if this is the case, because this was all the “historic” evidence that Ehrman provided in BeerCan’s link that only worked on copy paste.
> Funny how if you listen to this link of this vid that’s made 4 years later than BeerCan’s Ehrman video, Ehrman talks for a good minute about how unreliable Paul was and non-credible.
Give that a listen BeerCan how Ehrman basically says “Paul never met Jesus” and “20 years later is not credible”.
> Guess Ehrman’s done some thinking and research in the past 5 years.
– If BeerCan really wants to impress the world then maybe he should try attacking bible scholar elite Robert Price’s article here who says Jesus didn’t exist.
I’m sure a great bible scholar like BeerCan can easily make Mr. Price look silly.
Ignoring the fact of course how Price completely destroyed Lee Strobel’s book like it was a case of twigs getting fed through a wood shredder, not A Case For Christ.
– So moving right along. BeerCan attempts to discredit me by saying that Claudius reigned from 41-54 AD but was born in 10 BC.
– Let’s explain again why that doesn’t work to BeerCan…
> It’s still only a reference and quote 80 years after Jesus supposedly was killed.
> Still in the entire different century.
> The term and time period was 10 years after Jesus died, NOT when around the time he was supposed to have lived.
> No evidence the quote was even about Jesus.
> Nothing credible about a quote 80 years later, from a source that’s been dead for 60 years and passed on from other sources (this is credible how again?)
> The point is also that Claudius was dead 16 years before the writer was even born (credible again how?)
– I wasn’t off base by the way by simply stating the reign and not his age BeerCan, as u can see, the reason your point is irrelevant is overwhelming, but thanks to you showing us even more why, I see it as even more irrelevent.
– Yes Beercan the bible is HEARSAY, but the difference between the bible and history is the political agenda and motivation that religion involves.
– Let’s also not forget the part about there is no gods and the part about the evidence (the NT) is fabricated fiction.
– Because I don’t know what historians have fabricated through history doesn’t make me ignorant, since there is no way of knowing and history’s truth doesn’t dictate how I live, or who I have sex with. It simply is what it is.
> Religion can be shown to be false and fabricated however and quite easily if you aren’t brainwashed to disregard the facts and evidence and only mentally conditioned into believing a lie.
> I really couldn’t care less if I am being fed inaccurate history, but I do care about being brainwashed into worshipping one of thousands of non-existent nonsensical deities throughout history that have been worshipped on no evidence, brainwashing and lies.
> These lies which are responsible for endless billions of atrocities in history and responsible for unsurpassed misery and human rights violations!
– Beercan then goes on to “nitpick” about how I am “nitpicking” that there isn’t any evidence of Jesus outside of the bible in anything earlier than the 2nd century and over 80 years after Jesus’s supposed death. (How is this not important again?) I’m pretty sure that’s important.
> Uh I think that was the whole point I was trying to make BeerCan since on no level of rationality does that make it credible.
> I mean think think about what you just said, how does this count as any credible evidence whatsoever?
– As for bringing up Paul again do remember how your buddy Ehrman said how unreliable Paul’s letters were.
Please watch AGAIN til you finally grasp what we’re trying to tell you.
– Reminding BeerCan again how little I could care if historians got actual history wrong, or not, they most likely did get most of it wrong. WHO CARES?! It doesn’t affect my life!
> Please never waste my time with this irrelevant point that you have brought up again that you think has some significance when it doesn’t.
– The earliest COPIES of Paul’s letters is anywhere from 180-220 AD
> That’s pretty non-credible and pretty non-reliable and I fail to see how you could basically base your entire life off of the existence of one man and I don’t mean Jesus, I mean Paul.
> Reminding you again BeerCan that Paul never even met Jesus
> And I thought I was gullible when I was 14 and they told me wrestling was real.
> Let’s remove the supernatural and stick to actual realistic possibilities and see what we come up with…
– As for BeerCan’s ramblings and time wasting about the Osiris thing being beaten to death he might actually want to do some research on Roman gods.
> I don’t think BeerCan knows about how many gods Romans worshipped before christianity and who.
> He might wanna investige that.
Here’s a good one Beercan needs to watch in it’s entirety:
> I believe Osiris is mentioned about 18 minutes in, but it explains through unbiased historical research how christianity only exists because of the vanity of a mad man.
> There are many gods mentioned.
> BeerCan might also be curious to hear about what is seriously hijacked from other religions as told by unbiased professional historians.
– Then BeerCan starts rambling about if he were to show a blog I would be against it and I’d freakout.
> Whatever BeerCan.
> Why would I if it was unbiased and historically accurate and listed sources that could be verified and demonstrated organization and perspective?
– So let’s go over the sources of gods that Murdock mentions that BeerCan is so against and in such a huff about:
Explains how Osiris evolved into Serapis eventually.
– So BeerCan then finishes up by saying I cherry pick and don’t expect people to check my sources. He then finishes with how I’m failing miserably.
> So not only has BeerCan not made any relevant point that really affected anything I said in the article I posted, but he completely wasted his time saying he was demonstrating how he bested me in any way, which of course he didn’t, but was completely rude and obnoxious and came across as a total douche as usual.
Way to go BeerCan. You just demonstrated 6 things in my favor and I really didn’t have to do anything but respond back to you.
1) You demonstrated typical religious stupidity.
2) You showed everyone exactly how I described you.
3) You made no valid point whatsoever, but stupidly thought you did, which makes you look even worse.
4) You reaffirmed my points about how and why there is no evidence of christianity.
5) You amused everyone by how you grasped at straws and wasted time nit-picking irrelevant things and saying irrelevant pointless insults.
– This simply demonstrates what happens when christians attempt to defend the validity and evidence of their religion.
6) You also demonstrated the mind and behavior of someone who is a completely brainwashed victim of a lie who believes things based on no evidence whatsoever.
So thank you. Look forward to your next obnoxiously rude, or creepy exchanges that go nowhere and show christianity to be nothing but a pointless lie that has no evidence.