May 20, Tuesday/2014

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Ok this is the most unbelievably ridiculous post that Crackpipe has done yet.

Be prepared for Crackpipe’s unbelievable lying, projection, deflection, denial, stupidity and overall dishonesty in general. So in otherwords, be ready for his usual, but even moreso.

This is a response to one of my responses and overall unbearable that he just missed the train completely regarding everything I was telling him.

In some good news though out of all of Crackpipe’s insanity. When I get all these responses done of Crackpipe’s pointless attempts of saying that any of the non-evidence of Jesus outside of the bible was actually evidence, I will put together an awesome “Evidence of Jesus is Meaningless 2” article that will be waaay better than the first one.

So funny that Crackpipe wanted to defend his delusion, but all he did was help me destroy it by exposing christianity’s lack of sanity and evidence even further.

So without anymore time wasting (and Crackpipe loves to waste peoples time enough as it is) here we go with more from the douchebag of delusion himself…..

Crackpipe christian says…..

“BB(s)J kills his own argument!
BB(s)J has gotten around to replying to my critiques of his arguments against the evidence for Jesus.

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-kills-his-own-argument.html?m=1

Since we are debating the evidence for Jesus I will stick to mainly those points and any new arguments he may bring up. I’m not going to re-argue points already made, though in some cases clarification is needed for BB(s)J.”
————-

So in other words, Crackpipe is deflectling rather than face the truth about anything I said.

Got it.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Give this, I encourage my readers to see what BB(s)J wrote, I don’t mind!

You can read it here: BB(s)J responds

Again, because he put it at the bottom of the original post you’ll have to scroll down…

It’s not often you watch someone destroy their own argument while trying to defend it, but in this post you will!”
———–

Oh I’m so scared.

I think Crackpipe forgets all the times he destroys his own arguments.

Like the many times Crackpipe completely wasted my time responding to his responses when he revealed at the end that he didn’t believe the particular pieces were evidence either.

Like the times Crackpipe implied that I was placing my own standards on time limits of things being credible and reliable, while the whole time placing his own time limits and standards of how long til something is, or is not credible. Give us a break! (which is apparently unlimited it seems)

Like that last response I did yesterday when Crackpipe asked me why I didn’t accept something as evidence, but provided no reason why I should, or Crackpipe should.

Like when Crackpipe says “that just because I think christianity doesn’t make any sense, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t”, but then doesn’t explain whatsoever how christianity makes any sense.

Yeah, great job.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Now a quick note on arguments. Arguments fall into two categories: logically sound (logical), or logically unsound (illogical).”
————-

Ok sure.

– Believing things because they have evidence and make sense <Logical

– Believing things that have no evidence and make no sense <Illogical

– Telling me I should accept something as evidence when it's clearly nonreliable and noncredible, then telling me that they themselves don't believe it either <Illogical (and dumb)

– Telling me that a hippie rabbi that has no evidence he was even a real person, is the omnipotent master of the entire universe based on 2000 years of recycled hearsay and confirmed contradictions and forgeries <Illogical

– Admitting that all religions are the exact same and are no more sane or ridiculous than any other and that they all have the same amount of evidence (which is NONE) <Completely Logical

– Facing up to the fact that people are just brainwashed and programmed to believe particular things that no rational person would believe and programmed to disregard anything that contradicts that belief <Totally Logical

– Telling someone they themselves aren't brainwashed to their religion, but then giving no details about how and why they became religious in the first place <Illogical

– Trying to have a rational conversation with someone and they are deflecting every thing that exposes the fact that they are living a delusional lie Obviously he couldn’t defend, or explain it, so Crackpipe deflected the whole question, because there is no logical explanation or defense.

> It is afterall what all apologists do, even bad ones like Crackpipe.

> If they didn’t deflect, make things up and time waste then apologists really wouldn’t be able to say anything at all.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Well, maybe you can make that the next item I reply to: remember it’s YOUR choice after I a done with Josephus. But you get ONE topic or post of yours to address.”
————

I really couldn’t care less which one Crackpipe picks.

– He’s still living a lie.

– He still has no evidence for his rabbi/hippy/god.

– He still hasen’t told us if he was child indoctrinated, or brainwashed at a later date as a teenager, or adult.

– Crackpipe is still going to deflect, lie and waste everyone’s time (like arguing and defending things he doesn’t believe are evidence either) just because that is the kind of person Crackpipe is.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“So let’s find something on topic…

Lucian!

As with all other writings, BB(s)J tries to make the case that because someone wasn’t an eyewitness to an event, they cannot know any facts of the event. And that time removed from an event is good enough reason to discredit it.”
————

Crackpipe really is a moron.

– He can’t seriously be saying this can he?

– If Lucian has nothing to contribute in the form of evidence, then it isn’t evidence.

– Hearsay from brainwashed delusional religious people 100 years later and getting everything completely on hearsay is NOT evidence that’s insanity.

– ESPECIALLY noting the fact that this was a time of superstion and anti-science and there were so many other religions at the time, all of which had just as much evidence (none) but just as much faith.

– I really don’t have to make the case because there is no case, because basing something as evidence 100 years later and on nothing but hearsay is complete insanity and nothing else.

– Crackpipe has yet to say how that is in any way reliable, believable, or credible for ANY source.

– Again pointing out how to prove this credible the same way Mohammed flew to heaven and the moon on a flying horse is credible.

> If Crackpipe uses the same methods on the evidence of Jesus and still think some are valid, then use the same methods on Mohammed and the flying horse and he should prove that believable too.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Thus, I said:
In BB(s)J’s mind, perhaps, nothing historically factual can be passed down to the following generations beyond 100 years?”
So BB(s)J replies:
(lots of words until we get to the point)
“a) Lucian was born several years after the time Jesus was supposed to be killed. 92 years AFTER Jesus supposedly died.
– Lucian wasn’t there.
– Lucian never knew Jesus.
– Everything he knew about Jesus was simply hearsay that he heard from christians over 130 years later, not 100, but 130 years later when he wrote the satire.”
Same old points, until we get to the last point. This argument is not logically sound. It commits what’s called a genetic fallacy (along with a gross exaggeration that BB(s)J cannot back up.)”
————-

I seriously feel like I’m exchanging with Sacha Baron as “Ali-G” here.

– Every single one of my points I made in Crackpipe’s quote of me above are dead on and make this piece of evidence of Jesus completely meaningless, especially all together.

– I have yet to hear any good arguments from Crackpipe regarding how any of the reasons that I provided above don’t make the evidence completely unreliable and not credible whatsoever.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Fallacy first: genetic fallacy.
A genetic fallacy is a “reasoning” that something is true or false based on the origin or source of the belief.
In his last point, because of his own beliefs about Christians – that they lie, BB(s)J is trying to say what Lucian knows about Jesus can’t be trusted BECAUSE of the source: Christians.
Genetic fallacy.”
———–

So Crackpipe is really in desperation mode now. He’s pulling out the apologist’s biggest deflection card out there, the dreaded “genetic fallacy”.

– When an apologist uses this it merely is nothing but the person showing their true colors that they are nothing but a coward.

> So Crackpipe is a coward.

– Crackpipe has no defense against the fact that his only source that Lucian had were brainwashed christians.

> There is nothing to prove otherwise.

> There is nothing to say what the difference is between what Lucian wrote and Crackpipe writing something today and simply repeating in his own words what he believes about Jesus, which he got from the bible and Crackpipe’s words being evidence by him parrotting his belief.

> There actually is no difference between Lucian’s writings, or me writing an article about how much of a bunch of idiots christians are to believe in Jesus and then listing my reasons and then using my words as evidence for Jesus,

– So that’s fine then if Crackpipe wants to simply dismiss this and not deal with the fact that someone simply parrotting a bunch of brainwashed people’s hearsay without evidence 1900 years ago, is no different than someone parrotting a bunch of brainwashed people’s hearsay today.

> Both are not evidence.

> Since Crackpipe is so firm on saying that time limits are irrelevant, then I’d like him to tell me the difference of using Lucian as evidence of Jesus, or Christopher Hitchens as evidence?

– I could care less if Crackpipe wants to simply dismiss the hearsay unreliable christian sources as genetic fallacy for the following reasons.

> I know Crackpipe is simply deflecting.

> Crackpipe knows he’s simply just deflecting and now he knows that I know and he can deny it all he wants.

> I know he’s a coward for bringing up the genetic fallacy and rather than show me how in what way shape, or form those christian sources could possibly be considered credible, or reliable, Crackpipe simply deflected with the genetic fallacy and showed his true colors.

> Showing again that christianity has no defense and can’t even be defended, but merely pretended to be defended by simply not defending anything.

> How truly pathetic
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Now, just to explain further WHY this is fallacy is simply this: HOW one comes to know/believe a proposition has no bearing on if that proposition is true or not.
That is: the SOURCE doesn’t determine the validity of a proposition.
So, even IF Lucian did use Christians as his only source, it doesn’t mean his writing isn’t credible. BB(s)J would have to give further justification. He doesn’t.
Thus it’s fails as a logical argument.”
—————

BWAHAHAHA

Crackpipe seriously is deluded and I can’t believe he said that.

He is trying to simply “dismiss” how unreliable and full of crap christians are.

– Again Crackpipe has still not disclosed the methods that he himself became brainwashed to christianity.

– Back then in the second century how did people become christians?

> They told stories which they made up.

> They child indoctrinated their kids.

> They terrified them into believing.

> They exploited people when they were caught in an emotionally, or mental vulnerability.

– What a coincidence that there is no difference between the methods that they used back then as they do right now.

– Christians in the 2nd century had the exact same things then as christians and all other religions do today:

> Hearsay stories

> Faith

> Brainwashing

> Child indoctrination

– They also had the same lack of things to believe in their religion:

> No evidence that their religion or god isn’t fictional and made up.

> No evidence that their religion isn’t child indoctrination.

> No evidence that their particular god is real.

> No evidence that they themselves aren’t brainwashed without evidence and simply mentally conditioned to have nothing but blind faith and programmed to deny evidence against their belief.

> Anything that makes their religion different than any other religion that has no evidence and nothing but child indoctrination and faith based brainwashing.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Second, since BB(s)J himself wasn’t there at the time of Lucian’s writing he doesn’t know what sources Lucian used- he just assumes it was only Christian sources.”
———–

Unbelievable desperation from Crackpipe. Seriously WTF?!

– So Crackpipe is saying the following then:

> That a non-christian who didn’t believe in christianity had some secret information that no one else had.

> That a non-christian who thought christians were idiots, had a source of information that no one else had that would have somehow proved Jesus to be a real person.

> That this non-christian who had information that no one else had and thought christians were idiots, believed Jesus to be real based on someone telling him something, but still thought it to be ridiculous. (If he thought it to be real he would have been a christian and not thought they were idiots).

> That Crackpipe thinks that Lucian knew Jesus was real over 130 years later but still thought christians were idiots and didn’t believe in christianity.

– So I really don’t think it matters if I was there because there’s nothing that makes the Lucian “evidence” evidence of any kind.

– What POSSIBLE evidence could Lucian have had access to the made him not only not believe christianity, but think that christians were idiots?

> Oh they must have been amazing sources.

– And Crackpipe wonders why I think he’s a total loser.

– If he would only wake up to reality he would actually have a life.

> Like this preacher who became an Atheist and was a lot happier not living a lie:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x1q3GiTJzfM&feature=g-high-lik

The feeling of realizing you are no longer the slave of a lie and free from the grip of brainwashing is truly an amazing one.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“As we know from Tacitus, there were Roman sources and records as well that were available.
So, along with his other repeated points not truly being problems, we can disregard his last point as well because a fallacious argument.”
———-

No we don’t know that. Stop lying Crackpipe. You misleading, dishonest slime!

– If we backtrack to our exchanges about Tacitus you’ll see that Crackpipe provided no evidence, or indication that Tacitus used any other sources other than hearsay and common knowledge that christians were blabbing about.

– Also let me remind people of the multiple evidences of the Tacitus forgeries.

– Let me remind people how Tacitus’s work wasn’t even discovered til the 14th century and was in the possession of people who could have and would have used Tacitus’s work centuries before if it was real, BUT THEY DIDN’T. (funny that huh?)

– Oh yeah and the website links about Tacitus from May 15 that I sent him, in case Crackpipe dare say I provided nothing:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/author_Tacitus.htm

http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English/DrillDown/Tacitus.htm

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UgO8fAJVVM

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlE89XULcrk
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“He then goes on a rhetorical rant…

And doesn’t address the question I posed, thankfully I asked it again in a different way:”
————-

As I have told Crackpipe before that his words “rhetoric”, or “rhetorical” are meaningless.

– He likes to say them though like they are some kind of argument, or like he’s made some kind of point.

– I have told him several times but he keeps saying them.

– You gotta wonder what Crackpipe thinks he’s saying when he says this:

http://edurhetor.wordpress.com/about/rhetoric/

– After Crackpipe explains what exact definition it means, then maybe he can tell us what his point even is, or what purpose it’s supposed to serve by saying it over and over?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

> You have to wonder because of how many times I’ve called him a moron for using it.

– Regardless, he really is simply deflecting and nothing else by not addressing my points, so I could care less.

– Just shows his cowardice and lack of any defense for why he’s a christian, or religious in any way.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Is it impossible for Lucian to have known such an event happened? Is it impossible that the knowledge of Jesus’ crucifixion could have survived over 100 years? It’s impossible that Lucian could be referencing an actual event?”

He says:
– In Beercan’s question “Is it impossible for Lucian to have known an event happened?”
> Seriously?
> Beercan clearly missed the part about Lucian not believing anything about christianity, or Jesus”

That is not entirely true.

Let’s read what Lucian wrote again: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”[2]

BB(s)J makes an irrelevant comparison, doesn’t answer the question and then the following:

> Not only did Lucian think that christians were idiots, but considered believing in christiany “a sin against the greek gods” in his satire
> AGAIN, Lucian is talking about CHRISTIANITY the same way Monty Python made fun of christianity in “Life Of Brian”. That movie is no more evidence of Jesus than Lucian’s satire.”
————–

Crackpipe says I make an irrelevant comparison?

– The things he said I said, I said right after the question he asked and there was nothing in between.

Let’s just backtrack to what I said on that entry, on that part, right after he asked the

I said the following as a response and I will explain each section and why it’s relevent here in this copy paste:

I said the following….

“Ok, this is just Beercan being the most pathetic I’ve seen him and has officially become THE WORST apologist I have ever witnessed.

Let me explain why:

– In Beercan’s question “Is it impossible for Lucian to have known an event happened?”

Seriously?

-Beercan clearly missed the part about Lucian not believing anything about christianity, or Jesus
(so that means he didn’t see any worthy evidence, or he wouldn’t think this way)

-Lucian is simply describing “christians” and mocking them (it isn’t that hard to do and christians such as Beercan make it really easy to do).
(this was a great point but of course Crackpipe just dismisses it so he doesn’t have to deal with it)

-In the same story Lucian talks about Zeus and Hercules, but I don’t see Beercan jumping on that and saying that this is evidence for Zeus and Hercules, which is another religion we call “Greek mythology”
(Again Crackpipe the pathetic coward simply ignores something that he has no defense for)

-Not only did Lucian think that christians were idiots, but considered believing in christiany “a sin against the greek gods” in his satire
(reminding everyone that if Lucian had evidence somehow then he didn’t take it seriously, or he would have actually counted it as evidence and believed.

-AGAIN, Lucian is talking about CHRISTIANITY the same way Monty Python made fun of christianity in “Life Of Brian”.
(pointing out how and why both the movie and Lucian’s story were not evidence but Crackpipe simply deflected, or is just stupid)

-That movie is no more evidence of Jesus than Lucian’s satire.
(of course it isn’t but Crackpipe just dismisses it like the pathetic loser that he is.

-We have people claiming to have seen the Lochness Monster in multiple sightings, so if Lucian wrote that he saw the Lochness monster in his satire, does that mean we are supposed to take that as evidence of the Lochness monster?
(of course Crackpipe the coward just ignores this rather than face the truth)

—–Yep, all those responses were relevant, so great job showing your dishonest, cowardly timewasting Crackpipe.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Lucian reports: “worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”

Now, notice Lucian states (as a matter of fact and record) that Christians worship a man who “WAS crucified.”

Not: whom they believed was crucified.

I brought all this up in the original argument, BB(s)J is failing to address it and answer the questions…”
———–

Oh go crucify yourself Crackpipe. I failed at nothing. You’re just too cowardly and you deflect everything by not answering.

– You said “Boy if he’s not talking about Jesus…”

Then I said:

“He’s talking about what a bunch of people believed who he thought were both delusional and stupid and nothing more. Something he himself didn’t believe”

– If people can’t see how I’ve shown Beercan’s logic to be completely faith based and non-existent then I really don’t know what else to say.

– I can only hope then at best that onlooking Atheists, or agnostics will look at what Beercan is saying and see the harmful effects of religion and the brain damage it causes.”

(great points I made)

– Let’s recap:

> Talking about the religion and what they believed and there’s no evidence to say otherwise that he wasn’t.

> I show how Crackpipe is only saying he believes because of his delusional faith (which he did prove he was delusional by continuing about Lucian’s story).

> I make a great point about how other people should see this and see how dishonest and irrational Crackpipe is.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then a lot of nothing in particular until we come to this where I say:
“Time certainly is a consideration among many other factors, and justification is needed to argue why time should be or is a mark against a writing. BB(s)J give no justification”.

To which BB(s)J says this:
“WHAT?! “No justification?! I’m not the one who needs to justify 130 years later on something that is based on being aware of a people’s nonsensical religion that the writer himself thinks is ridiculous.”

Yes justification IS needed or it’s circular in nature, thus not an argument.

But as we just saw BB(s)J thinks he doesn’t need to.

Well if he wishes to make a logically sound argument he does. Otherwise he’s just begging the question: why can’t a 130 years removed document be trusted?

His answer: because it’s 130 years removed.

Circular. Illogical. Fails as an argument.

He can speculate, and he has at times, but speculation is not justification.

But we see he’s not willing to, thus it is not an argument. And repeating it doesn’t make it more so.

And since he can’t justify it beyond its original claim, he then goes on another irrelevant rant.”
————-

Ok, so let’s make it quite clear that I explained why 130 years is absurd and ridiculous over and over again and I’m glad that Crackpipe is keeping on about the time issue thing, because the more he does that the crazier he makes christianity and himself sound.

– Glad that Crackpipe makes my mission of showing how insane and stupid christianity and all religions are by his being so stupid and insane.

– I guess I’ll just do another copy paste:

This is from the May 15th Tacitus response I gave that Crackpipe is pretending he didn’t read:

“Let’s list some reasons and explanations since Crackpipe is basically telling us that he’s too stupid to think of any of these reasons on his own:

– The circumstances vary.

– There is no video, or audio, or pictures that happened while Jesus was supposed to have been alive.

– NOTHING was reliable, or trustworthy back then, but again let Crackpipe’s buddy Bart explain how things worked back then.

Goto the last 3 minutes of this 9 minute clip:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pXLu6ApQy2s

– Anything 5-10 years later in a time where people everywhere were superstitious, gullible and gossip almost had a life of it’s own, made things highly unreliable.

– In a time where historians could easily make things up and alter things of supernatural nature at will, if there were 10 honest historians, all that was needed was 1/10 dishonest historians that everyone got their past info from to screw everything up.”

I then say some more in the same piece on May 15th.

“- The bottom line is that Crackpipe is the one who is basing the definitions of time being something that can be measured and said to have a standard of being believable, or not.

> I’m simply saying that if something has no evidence, or eyewitnesses and is nothing more than the hearsay of someone else, then it isn’t “credible” or “reliable” no matter how many years it is.

> If it’s 5 years with no credible witnesses, supernatural and far fetched stories, with motives that contradict otherwise non-political, or religious motivated stories, they are shown to be unreliable.

> The more years go by, the more time that people can get stories wrong, make stories up, forget details, lose data, memories and details are remembered differently and rewritten and they have forgeries done, change the stories to the way the rewriter scribe wants.

> These factors really aren’t hard to think of and I really don’t know why Crackpipe is telling us he doesn’t know why these factors are FACTORS.

> I mean seriously it took me like 2 minutes to think of those and could have thought of a lot more probably, but this reply chronicle is taking a long time and I’m almost done and at this point I just want to get this finished and post it, but Crackpipe just keeps saying the dumbest most pathetic things ever and I have to reply and expose every time wasting delusional thought of his.”

– Hope this jogs Crackpipe’s memory cause he sure is forgetful.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But then reasserts:
– I really am not the one who needs to give justification,

If you want to make a logical argument you do.”
—————

Now I really am convinced that Crackpipe is unemployed.

> Imagine Crackpipe is late for his job and he starts arguing about what “late” means to his boss and making his own standards.

> Imagine Crackpipe telling his boss what he feels is circular reasoning for what he feels is actual work that needs to be done rather than what his boss wants done and what everyone else does.

– Get it through your little reality denying brain Crackpipe, these are why time is important and I want you to not conveniently forget this:

> They’re 130 years later and unreliable with no audio, or video.

> They’re 130 years later and unreliable because there were no eyewitnesses.

> They’re 130 years later and unreliable because they are based on nothing but hearsay.

> But above all, ABOVE ALL ELSE, even a SINGLE YEAR gone by without any evidence of anything and just hearsay alone IS UNRELIABLE!

> The problem is that every year gone by creates hearsay that changes a lot of the story and adds things that never happened.

> Every year that goes by makes things more UNreliable because more things get changed and more lies get created and more miscommunications are told.

– Now this ISN’T THAT COMPLICATED!

– I’ve told Crackpipe this all before but he still lies and says I didn’t and just wastes time!

– Seriously, how can he not think of these things? I mean they really weren’t that hard.

– It was actually harder just believing that I seriously had to even explain this to Crackpipe because I’m shocked that he’s too stupid to think of these himself.

> Oh wait a second, it’s Crackpipe and I already have explained this to him, so I guess I’m not surprised.

> I wonder how many more times I’ll have to waste time explaining when he brings it up again.

– I now really see why I didn’t want to start exchanging with Crackpipe after all these months.

> He’s the world’s biggest time wasting imbecile nutcase.

> The creepiness, telling me he loves me and the stalking me should have been a sign, but I didn’t listen.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“I DID give justification as to why time ALONE is not enough. Many times.

Then BB(s)J does the usual: goes waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Goes off on the NT etc…

When people must go off topic to make it seem like their arguments are better. Well…that’s speaks for itself.”
———–

What Crackpipe calls “going off topic” I call “additional education”.

– Last I checked I can say whatever I want and if it has to do with why you believe delusional brainwashing nonsense, then I’m going to say that because without the brainwashing there is no belief in Jesus, or christianity in the first place.

– I can’t help it if Crackpipe is too stupid to see that I’m attacking the source of his disease which is the brainwashing.

> Crackpipe is expecting me to simply just attack the symptoms (Jesus) but whether he likes it, or not I’m going to attack the source.

> Compare christianity and all religion to AIDS.

> Would you rather attack the symptoms of AIDS, or attack the disease itself? Exactly.

> Since Crackpipe is the brainwashed one I can’t expect him to behave rationally, or say anything trustworthy either.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But let’s move on to where BB(s)J makes himself look a but silly (again).
————

Sillier than believing a dead hippy rabbi is the omnipotent master of the universe and communicates with you telepathically and unless you love him and believe in him he’ll torture you because he loves you?

– Well gee, that really would have to be pretty silly wouldn’t it?
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“He quotes me: “Not to mention this is a non-Christian source! A hostile source to be exact! Which is important.”

BB(s)J says:
Ok Beercan is making no sense here.
– This is a non-christian source, talking about the religion of christianity 130 years later from when Jesus supposedly died
– I still don’t see how 130 years later and based entirely on hearsay by someone calling the religion stupid makes this credible in the slightest tiniest bit.”

BB(s)J doesn’t reject what I said. Just agrees with me it’s a hostile source then REPEATS is fallacious argument.”
—————

I think that Crackpipe needs a reality check.

– The fact that it’s a non-christian source and it’s depicting christians as idiots makes it LESS believable, not more.

– A biased christian source is bad but a source talking about how stupid they are is less reliable, not more.

– Even more unreliable that Lucian talks openly about Heracles and Zeus, but again I don’t see Crackpipe becoming a follower of Zeus, or Hercules.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Them follows it up with another: false comparison re: Joseph Smith and his plates.”
————

Ok so I don’t get what Crackpipe doesn’t get.

– Does Crackpipe actually believe then that the angel Maroni gave Smith the plates and that Smith gave the disks back?
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But let’s use it against him: Joseph Smith did exist, DESPITE what was believed about him.

As I pointed out before WHAT is believed about a person doesn’t effect whether or not they existed!”
————–

Ok this is what Crackpipe doesn’t seem to be getting.

– Joseph Smith isn’t who, or what needs to be proven.

> We have records of Joseph Smith including family members who confirm his existence and many other things.

> What we don’t have is evidence of Maroni, or the golden disks.

> Paul is thought of as Joseph Smith here for the basis of christianity.

> Maroni is the Jesus aspect on the basis of how the religion got started.

– Crackpipe seems to think that his implying that my bringing up Mohammed and Joseph Smith is off topic somehow makes it off topic.

– These aren’t new arguments and I’m not the only one to use them.

– They prove that christians are as delusional as any other religion that have no evidence either.

– Lucian’s satire is not evidence because he isn’t believing christianity, or telling us evidence, or saying things that weren’t common knowledge.

– The only reason Crackpipe even is convincing himself that there is evidence of Jesus is because he is delusional.

> Richard Carrier talks about it here:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XORm2QtR-os&list=WL

Also here:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

And for a nice compressed version then please look here:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ

– So these arguments I’m saying are not off topic and not irrelevant and everytime Crackpipe says otherwise then he is just deflecting.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“I then contended:
“Lucian doesn’t believe Jesus is God – yet apparently he believes Jesus existed, which we will read.”

BB(s)J then replies:
“He wrote about what delusional christians believed. How would he know what anyone believed was true, or not 130 years before?
– He wouldn’t.”

Too funny!”
—————

Funny? Only because Crackpipe is such a moron.

– Crackpipe completely fails to show how Lucian (a man who believed in Zeus and Hercules) believed Jesus was a real person and wasn’t just talking about what the christians believed.

– Crackpipe implies that Lucian has some secret information that makes him aware of Jesus being real, but that is simply going back to FAITH again.

> This isn’t about faith, but about evidence and there is no evidence that Lucian had any secret information that no one else was aware of.

> There is nothing that says that he isn’t simply saying what delusional christians believed.

> The fact that he doesn’t say “believed” is irrelevant, because he reveals nothing that says he knew of any secret info and wasn’t just parrotting common knowledge from delusional loudmouths like Crackpipe.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“See BB(s)J doesn’t seem to be able to parse out what’s claimed the Christians believed from what Lucian appears to claims as fact.

I pointed the difference in the first post.”
————

Crackpipe is the biggest timewasting wankhole I’ve ever had the displeasure of communicating with.

– I’m not wasting my time repeating what everyone obviously knows it said, which was nothing that wasn’t common knowledge.

– Seriously what is Crackpipe’s problem?

– Nobody can be this bloody stupid!

– Oh wait, I forgot that he’s brainwashed and religious, so yeah.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Maybe BB(s)J will address them, we shall see.

He does claim he read Lucian, so that’s good!”
————-

Ugh. Crackpipe is just so vile. What an imbecile. Seriously.

– There is nothing to address.

– I’m starting to think that Crackpipe is just a time wasting troll with some kind of psychosis where he gets off on wasting peoples time.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But then he says this:
-” At what point was he saying he had evidence and saw Jesus?
– If I wrote a story 130 years later about vampires and Dracula being real because people believed Bram Stoker was writing about real events, would not make Dracula or vampires real.”

Both are straw man arguments (more fallacies). He knows I never made such a claim so to bring it up is quite pointless.”
————–

Okay, I don’t know how much more of Crackpipe’s stupidity I can take.

– If Lucian never says a single thing that provides any evidence, then what is the point?

> Evidence is what we wanted.

> If Crackpipe is now admitting he wasn’t saying anything in the way of evidence then what was he saying?

> Every interaction I have with Crackpipe just makes me realize how deluded, brainwashed and stupid that christians and all religions are.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Second point, though fallacious can be thrown back at him: being 130 later alone wouldn’t make Dracula or vampires unreal either.”
————

So according to Crackpipe, a book of fiction can be said that something in it is real and then we can’t disprove that fiction. Great.

– So I hope everyone is now seeing the irrational moron that Crackpipe is.

> He really is only here to waste everyones time, but most especially mine.

– According to Crackpipe, nothing can be disproven as long as someone like Crackpipe keeps desperately clinging to it.

> What a wonderful debating point Crackpipe makes to show how irrational and pointless he is to try to reason with.

> Again proving the pointless stupidity and desperation of christians and how mentally deluded they are.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Maybe BB(s)J should look into how historians look at ancient texts: time is but ONE factor out of many and NEVER used on its own.”
————

How about how I’ve brought up stuff repeatedly about how religions have motives and people who lie and manipulate for those motives,

– How about how people have no motive for lying about history if it’s not religiously based?

– How about how Crackpipe still can’t face the fact that he’s brainwashed to a lie and that there’s no difference between his stupid religion and all the others?

– How about how there is still no evidence of Jesus being real and no evidence Jesus was divine in an way?
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then another straw man a and gross misunderstanding of my argument:
– “Bram Stoker’s Dracula was written in 1897, so according to Beercan if I write in 2027 about the story about how people who believe the story is real and that people believe vampires and Dracula are real, then they must be real.”

No reply needed here. That one speaks for itself!”
—————

I think Crackpipe is right, but only regarding the fact that by Crackpipe ignoring this he is showing that there is no difference between the example I gave and Lucian’s satire in regards to being “evidence” for the topics in the fiction we would have both written.

– Crackpipe is showing us that he can’t argue with the truth and so chooses to simply snub the argument like the coward who can’t deal with the truth that he is.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But, finally, yes!! BB(s)J does actually address a point I made. Let’s see how he does!

He quotes me saying:
“Christians…Worship a man, to this day…and was crucified on that account.” “…and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”
Boy if he’s not talking about Jesus…”

BB(s)J says this:
“He’s talking about what a bunch of people believed who he thought were both delusional and stupid and nothing more. Something he himself didn’t believe was that christianity was try”

So he just RESTATES his position.

Doesn’t refute however that Lucian IS talking about Jesus (which originally WAS a point he tried to argue).”
————-

Lucian is talking about the following things:

– Common knowledge that everyone was aware of.

– What the idiot christians believed.

– Things he didn’t believe (because his god was Zeus and his savior was Heracles).
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then says:
“- If people can’t see how I’ve shown Beercan’s logic to be completely faith based and non-existent then I really don’t know what else to say.”

Yep, it’s up to the reader to make up their OWN minds. BB(s)J would like you to just accept his position without question, I challenge everyone to look into for themselves and not accept or deny a position based on what BB(s)J and I say.”
————-

Well said Crackpipe. So since you broke out with that, then I’ll add some things:

– Christianity is no different than any other religion which has no evidence.

– None of christianity’s evidence is reliable, or credible as evidence whatsoever and anyone who says it is is only fooling themselves.

– Every absurd piece of “evidence” of Jesus has multiple reasons that make them completely meaningless as evidence.

– Science is real, science is proven and science explains things and what we don’t know we can eventually learn somehow with hard work and acheivement.

– If people don’t escape the mental bonds and shackles of not just christianity, but all religion that is no differerent, or has any less believable a religion than christianity, then the world is truly doomed.

– People don’t need religion and people don’t need to lie to themselves.

– If they do need to lie to themselves, then that only means that they have been mentally conditioned to be that way.

– This is not only child abuse by taking away a child’s ability to think, but an insult to people’s intelligence everywhere and religion handicaps and cripples everyone who is infected with it.

– Atheism is the cure, agnosticism is merely going into remission and being free from the religious cancer and deism is simply having the disease but living a full happy life and showing none of the symptoms

– Religion is a deadly disease that is destroying the world and killing and harming everyone and the scariest and most harmful part is the fact that people infected with it are unable to tell.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But BB(s)J isn’t done, then goes into my next point:
“Unless, that is, BB(s)J wants to propose some other crucified person whose laws a Christian would follow…I’m all ears (eyes)”.
————-

Ugh, Crackpipe is so dumb. I mean seriously a really stupid human being.

– Lucian is talking about how stupid the christians are and what they believed.

– I’ve said the same things over and over and Crackpipe just keeps saying the same stupid things.

– How many times am I going to say this? This is crazy! Nobody can be this dumb!

– Maybe Crackpipe is just a troll here to waste Atheists time.
.
.
Crackpipe continues his insanity…..

“(Next we will see BB(s)J forget what he argued)
BB(s)J says this in reply:
“But I wasn’t even saying that actually.”
– I simply explained how this satire that Lucian wrote is not evidence for Jesus because it isn’t and I showed that.”

Really? You didn’t try to say that Lucian didn’t talk about Jesus as evidence against his writing?

What’s this then? “b) Was talking about brainwashed christians, not Jesus.”.

Did you forget?

Because this was point two in your reason WHY Lucian wasn’t evidence.

Here was your list:
A) date of writing
B) not about Jesus
C) Lucian’s b-day
D) brainwashed Christians.

Well you just threw away B) so you’re down to three.”
—————–

WTF?! Seriously. I don’t see what is so hard for Crackpipe to grasp.

– Guess I’ll have to go through this for the billionth time.

– Talking about what brainwashed moron christians believe, not providing any evidence of Jesus the man.

– Provided no evidence of Jesus the person, just evidence that there were brainwashed idiot christians who believed a delusion.

– No details about Jesus, or his life, or offering of anything in the line of evidence.

– This is no different than someone saying “the Easter bunny is coming to town and giving the kids chocolate Easter bunnies”.

> Who is this Easter bunny being?

> Let’s hear some details about this bunny?

> “Obviously he exists because there is an Easter and all the kids believe in the Easter bunny and all the adults are saying it’s true and why would everyone’s parents lie?”

> It’s so funny how kids have Santa Claus and the Easter bunny and adults have God and Jesus.

> No details about the identity of the Easter bunny does not make the Easter bunny real.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“D) isn’t an argument against the writing, so your down to two.
———–

No “brainwashed christians” is definitely an argument and Crackpipe is definitely lying on that one too.

– Lucian is AGAIN for the billionth billionth time saying what stupid brainwashed christians believe and nothing else.

– No evidence.

– Just parroting common knowledge.

– No details about Jesus’s life, just the belief.

– Only brainwashed christians are dumb enough and insane enough to believe this is evidence of anything when clearly it isn’t.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Well A is dependent upon C thus can be put together.

So, really, all you have for an argument is your time!

That’s it!”
—————

Nope. Crackpipe is completely lying and he is either too stupid to have not heard my multiple arguments I say over and over again, or he is doing this on purpose.

– Guess I’ll have to list them all AGAIN for all the letters mentioned, but only because Crackpipe is too stupid.

– So it was good that Crackpipe did this letter thing, so now I’ll just copy and past a bunch of things that I already said that Crackpipe claims I didn’t say.

– Let’s go through Crackpipe’s silly little letter list:

A) date of writing
B) not about Jesus
C) Lucian’s b-day
D) brainwashed Christians.

So we’ll start off with “A”:

Here is a copy/paste of what I just posted above AGAIN, so maybe it sinks in this time. Plus I’ve wasted so much time telling this idiot the same things over and over again that I just gotta get these responses overwith.

A:

“- The bottom line is that Crackpipe is the one who is basing the definitions of time being something that can be measured and said to have a standard of being believable, or not.

– I’m simply saying that if something has no evidence, or eyewitnesses and is nothing more than the hearsay of someone else, then it isn’t “credible” or “reliable” no matter how many years it is.

– If it’s 5 years with no credible witnesses, supernatural and far fetched stories, with motives that contradict otherwise non-political, or religious motivated stories, they are shown to be unreliable.

– The more years go by, the more time that people can get stories wrong, make stories up, forget details, lose data, memories and details are remembered differently and rewritten and they have forgeries done, change the stories to the way the rewriter scribe wants.

– These factors really aren’t hard to think of and I really don’t know why Crackpipe is telling us he doesn’t know why these factors are FACTORS.

– I mean seriously it took me like 2 minutes to think of those and could have thought of a lot more probably, but this reply chronicle is taking a long time and I’m almost done and at this point I just want to get this finished and post it, but Crackpipe just keeps saying the dumbest most pathetic things ever and I have to reply and expose every time wasting delusional thought of his.”

Now “B” not about Jesus part:

“- Crackpipe completely fails to show how Lucian (a man who believed in Zeus and Hercules) believed Jesus was a real person and wasn’t just talking about what the christians believed.

– Crackpipe implies that Lucian has some secret information that makes him aware of Jesus being real, but that is simply going back to FAITH again.

> This isn’t about faith, but about evidence and there is no evidence that Lucian had any secret information that no one else was aware of.

> There is nothing that says that he isn’t simply saying what delusional christians believed.

> The fact that he doesn’t say “believed” is irrelevant, because he reveals nothing that says he knew of any secret info and wasn’t just parrotting common knowledge from delusional loudmouths like Crackpipe.

Lucian is talking about the following things:

– Common knowledge that everyone was aware of.

– What the idiot christians believed.

– Things he didn’t believe (because his god was Zeus and his savior was Heracles).

Ok now “C” Lucians birthday

Ugh seriously? I am expected to get into this again now? Well alright. A copy pasting we will go.

“Lucian was born several years after the time Jesus was supposed to be killed. 92 years AFTER Jesus supposedly died.

– Lucian wasn’t there.

– Lucian never knew Jesus.

– Everything he knew about Jesus was simply hearsay that he heard from christians over 130 years later, not 100, but 130 years later when he wrote the satire.

– This is no different than mormons talking about Joseph Smith’s golden disks 130 years later in 1950 to people and someone writing a TV show talking about how stupid they thought that mormons are.”

– I mean how stupid does a person have to be to not see how being born over 92 years later makes this as 10 times more invalid as me saying I have evidence of who shot J F Kennedy.

> Happened before I was born.

> I wasn’t there.

> Multiple possibilities of what happened.

> Multiple possible shooters.

> I never knew any of the possible shooters or Oswald.

> I wasn’t there when the shooter pulled the trigger.

> There are multiple reasons and holes that make nothing reliable and anyway to really know what happened to Kennedy completely uncertain.

> Now this is ME in today’s world and what evidence do I have about the identity of the real shooter, if Oswald was being controlled, or if Oswald was framed?

> Now think about how much more unknown it was about evidence for Jesus.

> Nothing but hearsay, no electronic media.

> Constant gossip and lying.

– Now remind yourself that Crackpipe is giving us no reason how any intelligent human being could possibly see how Lucian being born over 90 years later could possibly be conceived as reliable.

– If there were other sources of information about Jesus then there would be more than just 3-4 ridiculous and meaningless pieces of non-evidence and would actually be some that might be known and couldn’t be contradicted and shown to be meaningless so easily.

And finally “D” brainwashed christians.

– Now as to the fact that the source of Lucian’s info was just common knowledge from brainwashed christians then there really is no argument is there?

– Common knowledge.

– The source was a bunch of brainwashed christians.

– This is no different than if I said “Mohammed cut the moon in half and flew back and forth to heaven on a winged horse”.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“One weak, admittedly unjustified, argument against Lucian!”
————

Yawn. No, Crackpipe clearly is projecting his misleading insanity and lying.

– I clearly show how each argument shows the Lucian satire to be completely misleading as evidence of Jesus, but Crackpipe is just saying the same idiocy over and over.

– It doesn’t matter how many times Crackpipe says I’m not showing anything because as many times as he says it, I clearly am showing the Lucian evidence to be zilch.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Now, I really don’t have to go on. BB(s)J just killed his own argument. But don’t want BB(s)J to be upset I didn’t read his post…

And in all of this BB(s)J actually says this:
“Now the above is now showing how completely clueless and out of touch Beercan is”

But God bless him he keeps on!”
——————

There are no gods though and Crackpipe thinking that his version of his god over anyone else’s is absurd.

And in no way did I kill my own argument.

– He still hasn’t disclosed to us how Jesus having himself killed to save us from himself makes any sense and still has not provided us any evidence whatsoever that Jesus was even a real person.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“I think that there’s some things that you don’t seem to get Beercan.
– Whether or not he was implying that he believed Jesus existed, or not and that he thought that christians were following a real person, doesn’t prove anything regarding Jesus having been real and not just a myth passed on by stories and hearsay.”

Now BB(s)J does another tactic: move from evidence for to “prove.”

Second, he still contends that Lucian (who doesn’t like Christians) would only use Christians as a source for his info.”
———–

Ugh. Obviously I was using another tactic since Crackpipe is too stupid to get what I was saying, so I was simply showing EVEN FURTHER how this couldn’t possibly be considered evidence for anything.

There is nothing to prove that Lucian had any outside information.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“And it did matter before, to BB(s)J when he used the faulty: doesn’t talk about Jesus against Lucian.”
———-

In what way does he talk about Jesus the man?

– Lucian talks about what the stupid brainwashed christians believed in and nothing else.

– This is the equivalent of him saying “they worshipped some guy”.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Faltering, we see BB(s)J scrambling to build up his argument. If he made it as good as he says he did?”
———–

Nope. I wasn’t scrambling at all.

– Crackpipe was grasping at straws in desperation and making things up though.

– Nothing new.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“So let’s just read some of his questions:

> How could he POSSIBLY know if Jesus was a real person Beercan and not a faith based creation from imagination and hearsay if Lucian was born 92 years after 33 AD?

> How is Lucian any more credible than Beercan at proving Jesus existed?

But he doesn’t stop there:
“- Jesus technically doesn’t need to have existed for people to have believed in him.”

Thank you for agreeing with my point: WHAT someone believes about a person has no bearing on their existence!”
————

Alright this has just become so painful to read Crackpipe’s stupidity now. I should have just listened to my inner voice and ignored him.

– Crackpipe thinks he’s somehow making a point here but the reality is this….

> He isn’t.

> Whether ANYONE believes something, but there is no evidence, still means there’s no evidence.

> Whether anyone DOESN’T Believe something, but there isn’t any evidence, still means there’s no evidence.

> WHO WAS SAYING ANY DIFFERENT! WTF?!

– I said that Jesus didn’t technically even need to exist for people to believe he existed.

– I meant that there is the possibility Jesus could be a complete delusion, or totally made up fabrication, or evolved and plagarized “savior god”.

– There still isn’t any evidence and there still isn’t any reason to sanely believe a guy named Jesus or any other name he might have had like “Yeshua” was the omnipotent master of the universe.

> Oh and the saving anyone from anything thing is still completely ridiculous and still makes no sense.

> In what way does Jesus save anyone?
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“The he does the classic:

As Beercan’s buddy Ehrman explains:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pXLu6ApQy2s

I love how BB(s)J uses a scholar who BELIEVES Jesus existed to argue his point that Jesus didn’t.”
———–

Hey, Adolph Hitler was a despicable mass murder who killed millions of jews, but if he told you not to eat the large white mints at the bottom of the urinal he’d still be telling you something you should listen to.

– Ehrman is still making a point about the mentality of people.

– This mentality would still apply whether Jesus was real, or not.

> They would still make up stories to convince other people that their delusion was real.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“In any event it’s irrelevant to Lucian’s writing which we are discussing.”
————

Crackpipe is either projecting lies, or he really is too stupid to see that I was saying the obvious following:

> Lucian was parroting brainwashed christians and common knowledge of their belief.

> They were brainwashed to believe because people told stories to convert others.

> It really didn’t matter the stories were complete hearsay.

– All of which is completely relevant.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“BTW, I wouldn’t mind if Bart and I were buddies!”
————-

Crackpipe would love to have any friends, but he doesn’t have any because of what an annoying douchbag he is.

– He should work on that.

– Crackpipe should drop the religion and he would find that he would be a lot happier living in reality.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“So let’s find something on topic but new…

Beercan continues…..
B – “3) Jesus didn’t exist, and Lucian knew he didn’t exist, but kept that fact out of the story for some reason (even though it would make the Christians look even more dumb!)”

B – “Irrelevant what Lucian might have thought, if he believed Jesus existed, or not.”

It Is relevant because IF Lucian DID believe Jesus existed there was a reason for it beyond Christians saying so, as he didn’t didn’t much like them and as we see didn’t take much stock in what thy said.

You miss this point constantly.”
————-

Crackpipe is such a dumbass.

– I said that he didn’t believe Jesus existed, but I had said that because of several reasons.

> Lucian believed in the greek gods.

> He would have said he believed in “the leader” if he actually believed he existed.

> He thought christianity was ridiculous, which means he didn’t believe in christianity being true, or their leader

> He never mentioned any sources of why he would believe.

> There was no evidence Jesus existed back then either and everything about Jesus was based on hearsay.

> Everything about Zeus and Heracles was based on hearsay also, but Lucian believed in them because that was what he was brainwashed to.

> Since Lucian wasn’t brainwashed to christianity and belief in Jesus he thought the story was fiction.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“You assume that these Romans would ONLY (or at all) use Christian sources for their writings when we know the Romans had sources of their own.”
————-

Crackpipe is asserting that there was evidence of Jesus.

– There is no evidence that the Romans had any sources on Jesus even if he did exist.

– If Jesus even existed he was a meaningless nobody and everything about him was complete hearsay.

– Nobody who SHOULD have, or WOULD have written about Jesus wrote about him.

> None of these people did:

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html

> If they didn’t write about him then nobody did.

– So either Jesus didn’t exist, or he wasn’t important enough to have kept any records of and everything about Jesus or whatever his name was, completely evolved from hearsay.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“You show your ignorance of this (even though one link you provided for Tacitus tells us exactly this!) when you say: “Except that there is no way Lucian could reliably know Jesus existed if he was born 92 years later in the year 125 AD.”

So here BB(s)J finally answers the question if it’s impossible for Lucian to know anything factual about Jesus. He says yes. And he does later on too as you will see.

Why?

Because he fails to see how (personal incredulity) Lucian could know anything about history at all prior to his writing and/or birth. Another logical fallacy. It’s an argument from ignorance: Logical Fallacy.”
———–

I have no idea what Crackpipe is babbling about (something in a Tacitus link) he doesn’t even explain.

– Crackpipe AGAIN fails to explain what information could have told Lucian anything, if Jesus was either so meaningless that nobody bothered to write anything, or didn’t exist.

– AGAIN Crackpipe fails to explain how being born 92 years later from 33 AD, in the dark ages could have in any way allowed Lucian to have any evidence, or belief in something he couldn’t care less about.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“He quotes me as saying:
M -“What would then give either more weight is do we have other writings that support either proposition?
In short: yes. 1. Giver further outside evidence, which we will get to in other posts.”
————–

I have no idea what he’s talking about.

– I have no idea about the quote.

– Why does he say he has something, but he will provide it later?

> Why not provide now?

> Who has any idea what Crackpipe is talking about?

– Does Crackpipe not see how full of crap this makes him sound?

– Does Crackpipe seriously not reread these?

> His spelling and missing words are ridiculous!

> It’s completely unintelligable.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then says:
“Now Beercan is just outright lying.
– There is no credible evidence of Jesus outside of the bible and I have repeatedly shown how and why to Beercan, but you apparently can never beat Beercan’s dead horse enough for him to actually realize that it’s dead”

Well at the time if my post on Lucian we still hadn’t gone through the big THREE which nearly all scholars INCLUDING Bart Ehrman find to be VERY credible sources. See where I wrote “which we will GET to in other posts?”
————

Oh I clearly show how and why those are meaningless too.

– Really wasn’t that hard.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Now BB(s)J is very free to reject them an claim them as non-credible, but we have seen the oath he takes to get there. It’s good enough for him, I guess.”
————-

Oath? Huh?

– No idea what Crackpipe is babbling about.

– All I know is that I clearly show how everything is meaningless that is presented as evidence for Jesus.

– I look forward to getting all these responses to Crackpipe finished and then putting THE NEW article on why all evidence of Jesus is meaningless, which I have Crackpipe to thank for all the improvements.

> I hope that some christians see the article and really get it sunk in their head what my original article might not have shown them.

> With luck my new article will make a few people Atheists, or agnostics, or at least deists after reading it.

> As long as people realize that this religion is a lie is all that matters and all 40,000 different sects of it.

> I will of course put this Richard Carrier link in the new article explaining “why Richard isn’t a christian” and people can hear his 4 reasons.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4WBTlAPJ-4

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“And apparently if one disagrees with BB(s)J, they are lying. Guess Bart Ehrman is a liar too.”
—————

This is just another thing above that I have no idea what Crackpipe is talking about or referencing.

– So I will ignore it.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“I really like this next one!

Beercan continues….
M – “But let’s move on to BB(s)J other “logically sound” arguments against this quote:
c) Lucian wasn’t even born til 125
Of course what BB(s)J is getting at here is that Lucian was born well after Jesus’ death, thus could know NOTHING about him at all. That it’s impossible for Lucian to know if Jesus really did or didn’t exist, because he wasn’t there.”

Now what he says next is PRICELESS:

B – “Ok so why does Beercan keep implying that he isn’t getting it when he just indicated clearly that he does in fact know?
Beercan just summed it up pretty clearly.”

Yep! BB(s)J just admitted (via NO justification as we have seen, and ignorance if ancient history) that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Lucian to know anything factual about Jesus.

That it is impossible that any information could be passed a long over 100 years.

THAT’S BB(s)J’s ONLY argument against Lucian!”
————–

No that isn’t my only argument for Lucian, but I’ve already listed so many times, reason after reason why, but I will again copy paste what I just said.

– As I said above:

> Lucian believed in the greek gods.

> He would have said he believed in “the leader” if he actually believed he existed.

> He thought christianity was ridiculous, which means he didn’t believe in christianity being true, or their leader.

> He never mentioned any sources of why he would believe.

> There was no evidence Jesus existed back then either and everything about Jesus was based on hearsay.

> Everything about Zeus and Heracles was based on hearsay also, but Lucian believed in them because that was what he was brainwashed to.

> Since Lucian wasn’t brainwashed to christianity and belief in Jesus he thought the story was fiction.

> There is no evidence that the Romans had any sources on Jesus even if he did exist.

> If Jesus even existed he was a meaningless nobody and everything about him was complete hearsay.

> Nobody who SHOULD have, or WOULD have written about Jesus wrote about him.

> So either Jesus didn’t exist, or he wasn’t important enough to have kept any records of and everything about Jesus or whatever his name was, completely evolved from hearsay.

> Lucian’s satire is not evidence because he isn’t believing christianity, or telling us evidence, or saying things that weren’t common knowledge.

> The only reason Crackpipe even is convincing himself that there is evidence of Jesus is because he is delusional.

(Nice! I can hardly wait to copy and paste all these points that Crackpipe helped me think of)
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Yet, he hasn’t shown us how this is impossible, especially when historians tell us there were ancient historians prior to Lucian.”
————–

Ok, so like who? Crackpipe again doesn’t say. What historians and what records?

– Again, not these guys:

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“All BB(s)H has to back up this argument: faith.

He has faith this is true, and he bases this faith one ONE fact and ONE alone: the date of Lucian’s writings.

That’s it.

We just watched BB(s)J reduce his bad argument down to one faith statement, unsupported save for a date.

Again, I no longer have to continue on Lucian.”
————–

BWAHAHAHA

Well Crackpipe I will say these things about you that are undeniable.

> You are pathetic.

> You are grasping at straws.

> You are desperate and have nothing.

– What you completely fail to mention is that I said I was showing how any of the very few pieces of “evidence” of Jesus are completely meaningless

> I did.

> You have failed to show how they are evidence of anything.

So I will list everything again in hopes that you get it finally:

> Lucian believed in the greek gods.

> He would have said he believed in “the leader” if he actually believed he existed.

> He thought christianity was ridiculous, which means he didn’t believe in christianity being true, or their leader.

> He never mentioned any sources of why he would believe.

> There was no evidence Jesus existed back then either and everything about Jesus was based on hearsay.

> Everything about Zeus and Heracles was based on hearsay also, but Lucian believed in them because that was what he was brainwashed to.

> Since Lucian wasn’t brainwashed to christianity and belief in Jesus he thought the story was fiction.

> There is no evidence that the Romans had any sources on Jesus even if he did exist.

> If Jesus even existed he was a meaningless nobody and everything about him was complete hearsay.

> Nobody who SHOULD have, or WOULD have written about Jesus wrote about him.

> So either Jesus didn’t exist, or he wasn’t important enough to have kept any records of and everything about Jesus or whatever his name was, completely evolved from hearsay.

> Lucian’s satire is not evidence because he isn’t believing christianity, or telling us evidence, or saying things that weren’t common knowledge.

> The only reason Crackpipe even is convincing himself that there is evidence of Jesus is because he is delusional.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But BB(s)J continues on this incredulity of the Romans:”
———–

Ok, here:

“Incredulity”

“inability or unwillingness to believe.”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incredulity

– What Crackpipe FAILS to realize is the fact that Lucian provides NOTHING that is of any use.

– Everything Lucian says is based on things that were common knowledge.

– Everything that Lucian said was nothing that wasn’t based on complete hearsay.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Beercan continues….
M -“BB(s)J seems to believe that people in ancient times weren’t any good at passing along actual history to each other and that 100 years is FAAAAAR too long for Lucian to know anything factual about Jesus via any means or other person.”

B -“So the evidence that Lucian would have 130 years later of Jesus would be what
again?
– No body of Jesus
– No eyewitnesses despite what the gospels said
– Nothing but biased christian sources”
Oh my…

Then there is a LOT of rehashing I won’t bore you with (this horse has been whipped enough).”
———–

Well that took Crackpipe long enough didn’t it?

– He finally admitted that he really couldn’t argue with the facts, but instead decided to simply just dismiss what I said, but never made any points, defences, or arguments.

– Oh well.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“But at least BB(s)J admits something else:

ME: Sigh…for some reason BB(s)J believes it impossible anyone could come to believe in 1) God and 2) Jesus on their own but ONLY through brainwashing.”

He admits he believes it’s the ONLY way:
“Well this is true actually, so Beercan is right, brainwashing is the only way someone could be religious.”
————-

Well I am right and I explain several times why.

– You have to be brainwashed to believe religions.

– It is the only reason.

– There’s no other way.

– If people weren’t exposed to, or were told about religions til they were 18 years old then we would be living in a very different world because religion wouldn’t exist.

– Crackpipe is brainwashed too and even though he attempted to attack my brainwashing articles which we will get to, he never told us the following details:

– How he became religious?

– At what age?

– Who exposed him to the religion?

– If he was child indoctrinated?

– How his life would be any different if it was discovered that not one thing in the bible was true and all religions were false?

– Crackpipe also doesn’t reveal how people can become religious for any rational reason other than brainwashing.

– No religion makes any sense and can only be believed by having the brain conditioned to deny evidence and accept ridiculous things
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then more same old same old…

A LOT of it in fact as way off topic of Lucian.”
————

So in other words Crackpipe would rather deflect.

– I put things within what I write to help people think.

– Helping someone to think and not be the slave of a lie is never a bad thing.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Some name calling, and words….

He does try and address my points, but with rhetoric…

Nothing worth replying to.”
——–

He really does deserve the name calling.

> He is such a pathetic and idiotic human being.

> I really am doing him a favor by telling him.

> If I don’t tell him then who else will?

> This type of behavior and ridiculous thinking must be told exactly as they are (stupid, delusional and insane).

> We can’t encourage this stupidity and stupid things said and it can’t be thought of as normal, or rational if we are to survive as a species.

– More of the lovely “rhetoric” word that he still hasn’t explained which meaning it is, or how that is even an argument, or what he is even talking about.

http://edurhetor.wordpress.com/about/rhetoric/
.
.
Crackpipe continues

“But I wish to highlight this:

“Beercan continues…..
M -“And then BB(s)J ONLY goes on to show that some people believed other people were Jesus.
Not ONCE does BB(s)J actually address what is said by Lucian other than to incorrectly reference what it says.”

B – LOL Why would I when there wasn’t anything that was said that was credible as evidence?
Well actually I did say how nothing Lucian said was talking ABOUT Jesus, but simply about christianity, which he was saying much the same way apologists and priests do today, which isn’t proof of Jesus either.”

There’s that P-word!

Then he goes back to his second point which he abandoned in this post!”
—————-

Well yawn yawn yawnity yawn.

– So what if it’s said as “proof” or “evidence”?

– It really doesn’t matter and Crackpipe is just nitpicking and timewasting, but that isn’t surprising.

– It’s not like Crackpipe can show that Jesus existed from the writings of anything anyone said, or anything.

– No idea what second point he means because I’m so tired from working on this response for 5 days from Crackpipe saying the same pointless things over and over and his unbelievable timewasting.

– I’m serious that there is no way Crackpipe has a life of any kind.

> He couldn’t

> There’s just no way.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Beercan continues….
M -“So let’s look at his ONLY points of argument to this quote:
1) was written 100 years after Jesus’ death.
2) doesn’t address Jesus by name.
That’s it. That’s all BB(s)J presents to argue against the quote in question…”

B -“Well I said more than that, but addressed many issues in this response that should clear things up, especially about how Beercan is a lying, deflecting weasel.”

Yes, you SAID more. But your argument was down to those, and now (thanks to you) down to one: date.
————–

Well Crackpipe sure fixed that though didn’t he? My upcoming article attacking the evidence of Jesus is going to be about 5 times as long and address every issue that Crackpipe brought up.

– Christianity is officially doomed.

– Way to go Crackpipe.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then he just lists his arguments AGAIN which just gets boiled back down to the two, then one argument…”
————

Not true at all, but thanks to Crackpipe’s constant pushiness about petty things, there really won’t be any doubt now in the new article.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“Then onto Mormonism…Islam…
Then restates his belief…”
————-

As for the mormonism and islam again, they are old arguments and they are good ones too.

As shown here:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ

and here:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?list=WL&v=XORm2QtR-os

– So again these are old arguments.

– They do make a lot of sense.

– They show how christianity is just as stupid and nonsensical as any other religion and how stupid people are to believe them.

– They show how they are delusional because they believe their nonsensical religion but no one else’s.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“And there we have it!

BB(s)J cuts his own argument down to one point: date.

Of which he won’t justify, thus cannot be an argument.
———–

Yes I did and I had lots of other arguments, but I guess I gotta copy and paste this all over again. YAAY!

I said:

– Lucian believed in the greek gods.

– He would have said he believed in “the leader” if he actually believed he existed.

– He thought christianity was ridiculous, which means he didn’t believe in christianity being true, or their leader.

– He never mentioned any sources of why he would believe.

– There was no evidence Jesus existed back then either and everything about Jesus was based on hearsay.

– Everything about Zeus and Heracles was based on hearsay also, but Lucian believed in them because that was what he was brainwashed to.

– Since Lucian wasn’t brainwashed to christianity and belief in Jesus he thought the story was fiction.

– There is no evidence that the Romans had any sources on Jesus even if he did exist.

– If Jesus even existed he was a meaningless nobody and everything about him was complete hearsay.
Nobody who SHOULD have, or WOULD have written about Jesus wrote about him.

– So either Jesus didn’t exist, or he wasn’t important enough to have kept any records of and everything about Jesus or whatever his name was, completely evolved from hearsay.

– Lucian’s satire is not evidence because he isn’t believing christianity, or telling us evidence, or saying things that weren’t common knowledge.

– The only reason Crackpipe even is convincing himself that there is evidence of Jesus is because he is delusional.
.
.
Crackpipe continues….

“And he can’t fathom how facts could be passed along in ancient history.”
———-

You see this is what Crackpipe just doesn’t get:

– There’s no evidence of there being any source of information Lucian had.

– There’s no evidence anyone had any information on Jesus, besides just Lucian, because no one else did either.

– There wasn’t anything said in his satire that wasn’t common knowledge.
.
.
Crackpipe continues…..

“Well, perhaps he will address the others posts. Hopefully he will provide us with that list of lies I said.”
———–

Yep. List of lies coming up.

– Just gotta go through all the responses 1st.

– Comin up, don’t worry.

– Not my fault you have no life, say stupid things, say lies and sent so many responses.
.
.
FINALLY Crackpipe concludes this article.

“In the mean time I shall finish our series ending on Josephus, then BB(s)J can pick the next topic!”
————

Except you didn’t did you?

– You sent several responses in between this.

Advertisements