May 15 Part 2

Part 2 May 15-Thursday/2014

Well it seems that the Crackpipe christian really has no life and just keeps dishing these out one after the other. This is great cause it gives me something to do on the exercise bike for an hour at the gym, subway and fills in the void I have where Twitter used to be. Be great if I had more time to work on these, but unlike Crackpipe christian I have a life.

So currently Crackpipe christian has me with 6 more replies after this one. He’s on a real mission to make christianity and religion look badly and at the same time giving me lots of ideas for blog ideas and finding more great articles to use against religion.

So this is an article Crackpipe has done on Bart Ehrman and some of the quotes and things I said from him. Great, I can hardly wait to read it and reply.

Here we go…..

Crackpipe says….

“Buy-Bull Journal MISQUOTES Bart Ehrman…Looks silly in process.

BB(s)J, in his many replies, thought he’d try to take me to tast regarding Bart Ehrman and his stance on the evidence for Jesus (which is Bart Ehrman believes Jesus existed).
Now this is true and well known to those who actually follow him and read and listen to him- which I have!
But let’s see what BB(s)J says: ” 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.”
Well certainly I will!
But I’ll let Bart do all the talking.
A short while back Bart Ehrman wrote a book in an attempt to answer the question: Did Jesus Exist?
He did an interview (many I’m sure) that we can read here:

Amusing that Crackpipe really has put his foot on his mouth here.

– The link that Crackpipe provided contains no evidence whatsoever and just states Ehrman’s OPINION.

Here is a great interview he did where Ehrman again provides nothing but opinion and says flat out that it won’t convince anyone Jesus existed, but that it just simply says why HE THINKS Jesus existed historically:

– Bart openly says that there is no evidence of Jesus outside of the bible. Clearly says that if Jesus did exist he was illiterate too.

> How could the omnipotent master of the universe not be able to read? WTF?! He made a good point about that too.

– Clearly says there is no evidence or writings about Jesus in the entire 1st century.
Crackpipe continues….

“In this interview Bart says: “Some of these people indicated that they had heard that I thought Jesus did not exist, and they wanted to know if it was true. In fact, it was nowhere close to being true:”
And so? “And so I wanted to write a book that showed that whatever else one might want to say about Jesus, he certainly existed.”
So, Bart Ehrman believes Jesus DID exist.”

As I said, no evidence of Jesus that is credible. Bart Ehrman BELIEVES Jesus existed but he has no evidence that he did.

Just Bart’s opinion, nothing else.

– Here is part 2 to the link that Crackpipe provided that I am now providing:

> Still no evidence of anything in it.

> Ehrman says that he agrees with mythicists on the harm of religion too:

“In my book I argue that it is not an accident that the mythicists are all (to my knowledge) atheists or agnostics who find organized religion highly dangerous. In my view, they have a point about that, as religion has indeed been used for very hateful and harmful purposes over the years, from the crusades and inquisition to the justification of slavery to the oppression of woman, minorities, gays, and other people. So I understand the problem.”

> Which is of course because religion is the most evil thing on the planet and people are just brainwashed to a psychotic delusion (never a good thing).

> What makes religion so evil is that it makes people who are religious unable to see how harmful religion is.

– Again reminding Crackpipe that Bart does not think Jesus was a god and clearly states that Bart is an agnostic with Atheistic leanings and he says that too.
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, so let’s get to the evidence that Bart uses. I will list but you (and BB(s)J) can read Bart’s own words here:
Evidence outside the Bible:
1) Pliny
2) Tacitus
3) Josephus (twice)!
So what does Bart day this means? “But it’s something, and since these are not sources that based their views on the Gospels (since these authors hadn’t read the Gospels), it shows that Jesus was indeed known to exist in pagan and Jewish circles within a century of his life.”

Well I find this above paragraph and link that Crackpipe has provided highly amusing, for the following reasons:

– I already debunked why Pliny the younger, Tacitus and Josephus don’t work, no matter what Bart Ehrman says, I repeatedly show how they are not credible and non-reliable and therefore CANNOT be used as evidence.

– Bart also says again that there ISN’T any evidence for Jesus outside of the bible.

– Bart says that the only evidence of Jesus is IN the bible.

> This is not evidence for anything since there is nothing credible about the bible whatsoever.

> Crackpipe really messed up with this article.

> The bible cannot prove the bible, especially the gospels.

Need I remind you?:
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, but what does Bart say about Biblical evidence?
The really compelling evidence, though, comes in the Christian sources.
Wait, what?
Did Bart Ehrman, former believer, just say that the REALLY COMPELLING evidence comes from Christian sources?

Again, this is not evidence of anything and all Ehrman is saying now is that he is basing the entire existence of a historical person off the stories of one man and that the stories couldn’t have been made up.

> If course they could have been made up.

> The mere suggestion that someone thinks that the copies of copies of copies couldn’t be made up specifically to tell a propaganda story in order to hype a delusional religion with a political purpose that replaced judaism is crazy.

– He is also simply giving his opinion that the stories were not simply created as a tool to elevate with propaganda the greatest scam and fraud in Earth’s history.

– If anyone doesn’t see that the new testament is nothing but a tool used to replace and cripple jewish power, control and belief, then they’re blind.

> If you read the gospels it’s completely obvious that jewish law that was said to be put in place by a powerful prophet of God (Moses) is simply dismissed and replaced by what is described as a more powerful prophet of God (Jesus).

> How do you make one prophet of God more powerful, wiser and with the authority to dismiss another prophet of God? You make him GOD’S SON who is actually GOD HIMSELF.

> Pretty good idea to over authorize don’t you think?

> It was created with the purpose of giving certain people power and to make certain people lose power.

> Did anyone ever wonder why the jews are written about as total scumbags and that the betrayer of “the son of God” had a name like “Judas”? Think about it. Judas represents the jews. DUH!

> Did anyone ever notice that Paul tells people to obey the government and pay their taxes? Nobody ever noticed that Paul was simply manipulating people and nothing else?

Romans 13:1-7

– Strange how christians who were out preaching and worshipping Jesus were getting tortured by Nero and others don’t you think?

> Kinda like God didn’t care, or wanted them to get tortured, or DOESN’T EXIST AT ALL!

> Funny how there is nothing supernatural recorded EVER of any godly activity and especially today.

> Interesting also that faith healers lose so many multiple children, as though prayer does nothing whatsoever, as if no one was listening and God didn’t exist.
Crackpipe continues….

“And: “What I show in Did Jesus Exist? is that there are so many Christian sources that can be used by historians that there is really no doubt at all that Jesus at least existed.”

I guess Bart means like Eusubius and the many things he forged and quoted that we have copies of copies of.

Just like what christianity has done since the beginning, which is lie and make things up in order for people to believe their nonsense.
Crackpipe continues….

“Well shit, man…
Okay so why does Bart consider as this compelling evidence?
“Paul must have converted to believe in Jesus within two or three years of the traditional date of Jesus’ death. And Paul knew some facts about Jesus’ life; he knew some of his teachings; he knew his closest disciple Peter; and he knew his brother James. Personally! If Jesus didn’t exist, you would think that his brother would know about it.”

So again we’re basing a religion off of one man and his stories. This is no different than Mohammed getting an angel to tell him what to write in the koran and basing islam off of that, or Joseph Smith having an angel give him the golden plates and starting mormonism, which has 15 million members.

– There were even witnesses to Smith:

– As is explained here:
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, enough of Bart for now, let’s get back to BB(s)J’s argument:
-” 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.”

Yep. Pretty good points I make.
Crackpipe continues….

“The only real issue here is the last point as it’s clear we are going through the evidence one by one. Both of us have use BE in our arguments – however, sadly for BB(s)J Bart sides with me on this argument: Jesus DID exist and there IS evidence outside the Bible.”

Unfortunately for Crackpipe the 3 sources that Bart lists have all been repeatedly shown why they are non-reliable and non-credible.

– Do I have to list the 3 references of “evidence” and the reasons they are NOT reliable and NOT credible no matter what Bart or anyone says? Ok fine. I seriously don’t mind because eventually they will sink in to Crackpipe I hope.

Here we go:

– Strong evidence and reasons why they were forged (many many reasons).

– The fact that Bart’s 3 sources are referencing CHRISTIANITY which was just as common knowledge then as it is now (hearsay).

> This was of course 80 years later or longer and in the 2nd century where like all other religions, christianity had a life of it’s own and the more time went on back then the more hearsay, lies and gossip became worse and worse.

> No evidence from anyone significant of when Jesus was said to have lived and there were MANY:
Crackpipe continues….

“So, no BB(s)J, neither Bart nor I base our conclusions SOLEY on Paul.
But let’s go back to when I linked up Bart (and sorry BB(s)J you had to copy and paste, that must have been traumatic for you ; ) ).

No you base your conclusions on things that aren’t evidence and other things that aren’t evidence.

– Did Bernie Madoff have any evidence for his “investments”? No, just a story.

> Did countless people say to have “faith” in him? Yes, but with no evidence. It was just a scam.

– No evidence plus no evidence is the equivalent of 0 + 0= 0

> Paul = zero evidence
since it’s just the words of ONE man in the bible with nothing he said even being confirmed as real, in a book that is completely non-historical and based on fictious nonsense.

> The 3 writers of non-biblical evidence = zero evidence
since there are strong leanings toward forgery, things that don’t make sense and the fact of simply talking about christianity and common knowledge.

Wasn’t traumatic, just stupid that Crackpipe doesn’t use a better site and it’s beyond pathetic that Crackpipe doesn’t realize how bad his spelling is that he doesn’t see it and correct it.
Crackpipe continues….

“I wrote: “Most NT scholars and historians (religious AND secular) have no issue whether or not the historical Jesus existed. Again, as BE says, “We have more evidence for Jesus than ANY OTHER person during his time.Now, don’t take my word for it. Here’s Bart in his actual words:

So 3 stories that aren’t credible, or reliable that back a multi-billion dollar a year agenda for power and control is supposed to be more evidence than other people who are based on stories, but don’t have an agenda, or motive to be fabricated?

> Again I remind Crackpipe of the many things taken out of the bible after 16 centuries. Some of which because they were so ridiculous and were created to tell stories about Jesus, but were such ridiculous stories that the church took them out because they didn’t want to lose members because of how stupid they were, even though they weren’t much different than all the other things in the bible.

> Here’s one that even depicted Jesus as gay and having sex with a boy in his tomb for 6 days:

– Many forgeries and many things the church just buried because they knew how badly they made the church sound.

– The church has no limits on anything to be forged, or to bury anything that might expose their lies.

> If the church covers up it’s child raping scandals then what is to say they have any limits of what they can, or cannot do?

> Many popes sure had no idea what their limits on evil were:

> I think it quite insane that christians think that their god out of thousands of gods believed throughout history is the right god and that their god simply lets all these evil things happen in not only it’s name, but to it’s butt kissing followers, but that’s just fine with it.

> It’s like Epicurus supposedly said:

Crackpipe continues…

“So either Bart Ehrman is a complete IDIOT or there IS actual evidence for Jesus and one can either accept or reject it.”

No Crackpipe, Bart is just giving his OPINION, that’s it. He repeatedly says that there isn’t any evidence, over and over. I guess you missed those parts.

Let me show you this vid again:

The vid is 26 minutes long and I think you even sent me this at some point.

I’d like you to fast forward to some parts in this vid:

14 min 40 sec in- “There is no hard physical evidence, or archeological evidence of any kind for Jesus”

(Glad Bart cleared that up).

15 min 30 sec in- “We have no writings made by Jesus of any kind”.

(Wouldn’t God the narcissist at least have his writings preserved and read)

16 min 15 sec in- “No Greek or Roman author mentions Jesus in the entire 1st century”.

(As I repeatedly keep saying).

18 min 15 sec in- “A myth that Romans kept records of everything”

(So much for what you were saying about Tacitus then and his wonderful record checking of so many years before).

21 min 20 sec in- “Josephus isn’t mentioned by a single person in his day”.

> Well that sure is convenient then isn’t it?

– As for what Bart was saying about Jesus being a rising god….

Here’s Richard Carrier to say how Jesus DID NOT EXIST:
Crackpipe continues….

“Now, obviously BB(s)J missed the point. I quote BE, then say here’s Bart in his actual words, lest I be accused of quoting Bart for something he didn’t actually say.”

No Crackpipe YOU are definitely the one who missed the point.

– There is no evidence of Jesus.

– All “evidence” of Jesus is either non-existent and non-reliable, or forged by a scribe of the church.

> It really isn’t that hard to figure out.
Crackpipe continues….
“I was NOT presenting Paul here, into the argument as it isn’t part of the topic (I like to stay on topic). However, Bart’s quote does fit in the regards to he states we have more evidence for Jesus than ANY OTHER person during his time and this DOES include evidence outside the Bible.”

This is no different than saying we have more evidence for flying horses, than snuffalupaguses. Remember, because Mahommad flew to heaven on a flying horse?

– No evidence is still no evidence.

> Unless Crackpipe believes in flying horses, but like the muslims that is just an overwhelming need to believe.
Crackpipe continues….

“Thus, SINCE Bart believes there is evidence outside the Bible – he must be an idiot, in BB(s)J’s mind (though he does use Bart in one of his “arguments”).”

No I do not think Bart is an idiot, that is just Crackpipe putting words in my mouth. I will continue to use quotes from Ehrman and think he gave WLC a trashing like nobody else I’ve ever seen.

– If Crackpipe however doesn’t see though how much the importance of the existence of the historical Jesus is to Ehrman then Crackpipe is just fooling himself.

> By Ehrman simply saying that he has nothing to gain by saying otherwise and people believing that are just fooling themselves.

> If Ehrman has nothing to gain then how come all his books including the one he is promoting “From Jesus To God” all depend on the fact that Jesus had to have existed?

> I’m sure people would really be lining up to buy his book if he promoted that Jesus didn’t exist. DUH! Think about it.

> This is like Koch brothers saying they have nothing to gain by stealing money from the banks from before and after the bailout because they are successfull bankers.
Crackpipe continues….

“But what else does BB(s)J have to say:
“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”.
Funny how BB(s)J must have watched a different video than he linked. At NO time did Erhman say “20 years later is not credible.”
NOR did he say Paul was unreliable and non-credible. Though BB(s)J uses quotes, which usually denotes ACTUAL words spoken, not misinterpreted.
Just because I’m that type of person, I will transcribe here EXACTLY what Bart says about Paul’s letters. Now, in case you don’t watch the video it’s about the RESURRECTION of Christ and the sources for it. NOT for sources pertaining to Jesus’ existence (context BB(s)J). So Bart is going to go through what sources there are for the resurrection of Jesus ONLY. Again, not IF Jesus existed.
Bart’s discussion on Paul Starts at 2:43 when Bart says “…Well Paul was writing before that wasn’t he? (40 years after is the earliest record of resurrection) Yes Paul was writing before that. Paul talks about the resurrection in 1st Chorinthians, well that’s 20 years after the event so that’s BETTER.”
Note: See how Bart is just talking about the resurrection here? NOT Jesus’ existence. Note too, that even though he’s talking about resurrection, he STILL says Paul’s letters are what? Better. So far, he hasn’t said “unreliable” and “non-credible.” Maybe he will, let’s continue…
“The Gospels give us the narrative, Paul makes reference to it, but there’s a 20 year gap. You don’t have somebody who was there, writing about it. Second point: none of the authors were eyewitnesses. Paul himself indicates he was not an eyewitness. And none of the Gospel writers was an eye witness.”
And this sentence ends at 3:16. No further reference of Paul is made…but don’t take my word for it. Watch it yourself, and hear EXACTLY what Bart says.”

Let’s go over what Crackpipe has said here shall we?

– 1 min 40 sec- Talks about how the gospels are not historical (this means they aren’t reliable)

– As for Crackpipe saying I said something that wasn’t true, I used the word “basically” which any one with common sense knows that it means “to sum it up without typing a gazillion words (because I have a life, unlike Crackpipe christian).

– Thanks though Crackpipe for writing my points out though for me to prove my points even more. Look what you wrote above and we’ll just go through it.

> “20 years after the event” Exactly, which is not credible, or reliable because it was 20 years later.

> “You don’t have somebody who was there writing about it”. Right again, so not credible, or reliable.

> “Second point: None of the authors were witnesses. Paul himself indicates he was not an eyewitness”. So not credible, or reliable.

– I think that these 3 points that Crackpipe himself was nice enough to quote, say quite nicely how Paul was not reliable, or credible BASICALLY.

– There is no way that Crackpipe can say that these things are credible, or reliable, despite how many times he attempts to say that it is.
Crackpipe continues….

“Should I make a joke about BB(s)J’s math too about how long Bart actually talked about Paul?”

No Crackpipe can attempt to make a joke if he wants, but he will still be the one who has imaginary friends that sacrifice themselves to save us from them and hundreds of other ridiculous things that make no sense, such as talking snakes and long hair giving super powers.
Crackpipe continues….

“Okay, but were does Bart say that Paul’s letters are “unreliable” and “non-credible”? He doesn’t. Because Bart knows that Paul’s letters are NOT used to defend the belief of Jesus’ resurrection. However, like Bart, most people do agree that Paul’s letters are evidence for the EXISTENCE of Jesus.
Okay, but does Bart say those words at all?
8:16 into the video, “MY conclusion: These are NOT reliable historical accounts. There are too many discrepancies.”

My point was obviously that Bart was contradicting himself. Which he was. He already said that Paul’s letters were 20 years later and that Paul wasn’t an eyewitness and wasn’t there and never knew Jesus.

– This is no different than somebody saying they were witness to a murder 20 years ago, but they weren’t there and never met the murderer, or the victim.

> So what judge, or court would give a flying crap about what he said then?

> If Crackpipe says “yes” then I hope people see what kind of person we’re dealing with here in Crackpipe and how delusional and psychotic the religious mind truly is and I hope that if someone is religious and they read this that they see how stupid and insane they sound.
Crackpipe continues…..

“So what is he talking about? The Gospels. NOT Paul’s letters.
As to the other points BB(s)J makes re: Paul, Bart and the video:
Of COURSE Paul never met Jesus (pre-crucifixion)! I just quoted about how I used Bart’s quote and Paul MEETING Jesus was never in there! Wow, BB(s)J has to make up an argument that was never made…

So what part of “not an eye-witness, not being there and 20 years later writing about it” says that Paul was there?

– Bart, like everybody else, including Crackpipe, knows that Jesus never met Paul, it’s quite common knowledge and that that is why Bart SAID “not an eyewitness”.

– What else was he implying then?

> Is Crackpipe saying Paul knew Jesus and he was there when he was crucified?

> Now Crackpipe is just wasting everyones time.

> Belief in any religion of course wastes everyones time.

> I prefer living in reality myself.

> I prefer not being brainwashed to a lie.

> I prefer not being a slave to a lie.
Crackpipe continues….

“So what does BB(s)J think this video shows?
“> Guess Ehrman’s done some thinking and research in the past 5 years.”
Hmmm…..Oh there’s more.

I can’t help it if Ehrman contradicts himself and implies something different 5 years later, then later says he’s saying something different but really isn’t.

– As I said about this video Crackpipe:

> Bart was talking about how the gospels are not reliable and not historical.

> He listed because the authors of the gospels weren’t there and they were 40 years apart.

> He implied that 20 years later and not an eyewitness was non-credible and non-reliable.

> Again, what does 20 years later and not an eyewitness mean?

> Again I will bring up if a man is on the stand of a trial and tells the judge he didn’t know the victim and didn’t know the murderer and wasn’t even there, what is the court and judge supposed to say?
Crackpipe continues….

“- 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.”
Then he puts up a link where Price is to have said Jesus didn’t exist and this somehow supports that Bart Ehrman agrees.”

Actually no, that wasn’t what I meant at all.

– What I meant was that Price had some great convincing arguments about why he believes Jesus didn’t exist and thought he should simply read a well educated bible scholars take on it.

> I also meant exactly what I said, which was “that Crackpipe should attack Price’s article since he likes attacking articles so much”. I mean as it is it’ll be weeks catching up just to all the articles that Crackpipe has up right now attacking my articles since Crackpipe has no life.

> Let’s go see how many articles Crackpipe has up dedicated to me now… BRB

> WOW! I just looked and Crackpipe has put up 3 new articles all basically dedicated to me. 15 in total. What a psycho.

> I can hardly wait for summer holidays from school so maybe I can spend an extra hour a day working on responding back to the world’s creepiest apologist.
Crackpipe continues….

“Well, Bart has since published his book – and I showed you what was written and said. This video, while PUBLISHED to Youtube in 2014 doesn’t have a date – or at least I didn’t find one.
In any case, at NO TIME did Bart say he didn’t believe Jesus existed. He just doesn’t believe he was raised from the dead! Nor did ANYTHING that BB(s)J contradict what I claimed Bart has said.”

As I said before Crackpipe, but I will repeat these though so maybe you get it this time.

– Bart says there is no hard evidence for Jesus, or archaeological evidence for Jesus.

– He says that the gospels are not historical evidence.

– All the same reasons he gives for why the gospels aren’t historical are why Paul isn’t historical.

> Too many unreliable years.

> Not an eyewitness.

> Paul never knew Jesus.

> Paul wasn’t there.

– How is this evidence because of ONE MAN? It isn’t!
Crackpipe continues…

“So I will restate what I claim Bart has said and BB(s)J can try again to show where I am wrong.
1) Bart believes Jesus existed.”

I never said that he didn’t believe Jesus existed.

> I said there is no evidence of Jesus outside of the bible for which Bart is perfectly aware of.

> I repeatedly showed how Bart said the gospels were non-historical.

> I repeatedly showed how Bart contradicts himself about what he says and how he says the gospels are not reliable, or historical and then uses the same standards for Paul.

> I also said why despite what Bart says, he does have strong motive for giving his OPINION that Jesus existed.

> Notice how he says that people who are NOT convinced will NOT be convinced by reading his book…. Now why is that?
Crackpipe continues….

“2) Bart believes there is evidence outside the Bible.”

Which I clearly explained multiple multiple times why nothing Bart says will make those THREE pieces of evidence credible. (It’s no wonder that I’m 15 articles behind Crackpipe’s articles).

– In fact Bart clearly says in his book “Did Jesus exist” that the 3 sources were just hearsay. (backtracking to this article).
Crackpipe continues…

“3) Bart believes Paul’s letters are great evidence.”

So why does he say the gospels are not reliable, not historical and can’t be considered evidence for multiple numbers of reasons, then not hold Paul’s letters to the same standards?
Crackpipe continues….
“4) Bart does not believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
It’s no shock, really, that BB(s)J did such a shitty job in this retort…we’ve seen his argument style before. Additionally, one can understand why I don’t reply much to what he chucks at me in his replies…”

Well why would anybody think Jesus was raised from the dead unless they were brainwashed, insane, or stupid?


– No Crackpipe, there really is no way I can do a bad job when you think about it.

> You’re living a lie. I’m not.

> Your religion is no different than thousands of religions that have no evidence…. all of which feel the same way you do about their religion, that you do yours.

> All religions (like yours) are brainwashing.

> You are brainwashed to a lie that makes no sense.

– I do an amazing job replying and trashing Crackpipes blog replies and exposing them as meaningless nonsense, LIES, brainwashing, stupidity and showing the harm that the disease called religion does.

– Crackpipe says he doesn’t reply much to what I chuck at him in my replies? HUH?!!

> I have a backlog of currently 15 of Crackpipes blog responses to reply to that says otherwise.

> I guess that is more evidence of how psychotic Crackpipe really is since he thinks he doesn’t reply much to me.

> LOL What a loser Crackpipe is. Seriously.
Crackpipe continues….

“BB(s)J has still been silent, but no matter. If he wishes to reply further, I welcome it and even welcome him to comment directly to this blog!
If you think that something is wrong here, please correct me!
If any reader wishes that I address something BB(s)J challenged me on (though I couldn’t really see what), let me know and I’ll take a look!”

Uh I’m silent because I have a life.

– Crackpipe has no life obviously.

– A response could take 4 days because I really don’t have any free time with with school, the gym and homework.

> Using all my free time to get as much education in science, psychology as possible and eventually philosophy, in order to fight religion takes time.

> My many hours training and exercising help make sure that I live long enough to acheive all my educational desires since I am getting up there in years.

– I believe either that Crackpipe is on unemployment and that is what pays his rent and why he has so much free time, or he lives in his parents basement and sponges off them.

> This would explain all his freetime and seems that writing blog responses to me has become his entire life.

> It seems that writing blog responses to me has become more of an obsession than his delusional religion is.

> At least I’m real and Crackpipe is talking to a real person when he exchanges with me, which is a step up for him I guess.

> I highly doubt anyone would bother replying to Crackpipes blog on Crackpipe’s blog, in a way he’d like, unless they are as psychotic and demented as Crackpipe is.