May 7, Wednesday/2014

Ok here’s a new update from Beercan attacking my article on why all “evidence” of Jesus is meaningless, because it isn’t in the entire 1st century and not from outside sources of the bible, which is a work of fiction.

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/part-three.html?m=1

He’s made a part 3 (oooh exciting). Let’s see how he proves any of the “evidence” as “not-completely meaningless”. So far he hasn’t shown anything to be credible evidence and even agreed with me and provided more evidence to say that it further proves the evidence to be meaningless, but let’s hear what he has to say.

Let’s dissect what Beercan says in the following:

“As we have seen BB(s)J’s aresnal is quiet lacking. That is, the tools he uses are pretty much all him: opinion, rhetoric, logical fallacies, bias, and attacks. Oh and ignorance of facts. And lo and behold! He comes to the conclusion that none of the evidence is evidence of anything!”

So let’s just examine this:

Opinion- No Beercan. Let me explain again since you don’t seem to get that I’m not giving OPINION, that would be YOU.

a) Outside of the bible (which has no evidence and is complete fiction with multiple contradictions and a political agenda for control, power and financial gain). That’s what I’m looking for.

b) Within the 1st century.

c) Not hundreds of years later based on hearsay alone.

d) The writer was alive DURING the time of the events, not decades to centuries later.

e) The sources were non-christian and not said by multiple scholars that they were simple forgeries with an agenda.

These aren’t my OPINION Beercan these are how a rational human being thinks and if you can’t read a-e and see how this truly does discount any evidence of Jesus as meaningless, then it really does show people how illogical and stupid the brainwashed christian mind is.

So thanks again.

Rhetoric- Beercan looooves to say “rhetoric” over and over and for some reason thinks merely saying the word “rhetoric” even makes a point. I mean he really is an imbecile.

– Let’s go over the dictionary what it means.

As a noun- “Rhetoric is the art of using words well when speaking or writing.”

“The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.
Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress.
It’s only so much rhetoric.”

– There really is nothing I’m saying Beercan that isn’t truth or fact and everytime you use the word “rhetoric” is nothing more than pointless and meaningless and you again just make christianity look bad.

– I really would love to hear your definition, or what you think it means.

– If things ARE NOT evidence, they’re NOT EVIDENCE and no amount of faith, or denial will change that.

– By the way Beercan, you have NO RHETORIC.

– You don’t even check your grammer in your blog and your use of the english language and how you word things is beyond painful.

Logical fallacies- Well Beercan can say that all he wants, but…

– He’s still brainwashed
– He still has no evidence to believe his religion
– His religion still makes no sense whatsoever
– There still is no difference than Beercan’s religion and the thousands of others throughout history that are not believed by him
– When he dies he will still simply fade into non-existence and will have wasted all his time defending his stupid religion which is the most evil and destructive thing that ever existed.

Bias- Actually no. The reasons I’m listing are simply the facts and I simply listed above how and why the “evidence” of Jesus is meaningless, BECAUSE THEY ARE.

– The fact that these completely meaningless pieces of evidence are being pushed to be believed by Beercan, demonstrates HIS bias, not mine.

Attacks- Yes I will continue to attack religion as long as there are people like Beercan who exist and show the world how irrational, stupid, delusional and overall insane people can be.

Ignorance of facts- Beercan still has not shown how any evidence of Jesus has any credibility.

There is nothing in the above opinion section a-e that doesn’t demonstrate how nothing of the “evidence” of Jesus I talk about isn’t completely non-credible and completely unreliable, so I think Beercan is the one who is completely ignorant of what a fact even is.

Beercan then brings up the Alexander the great argument again, because he thinks that because history accepts information about a person who wasn’t supernatural and there was no evidence for, except for stories hundreds of years later, it automatically makes the non-credible Jesus stories credible.

Isn’t that again hilarious that Beercan doesn’t believe the multiple supernatural stories from other religions that have the same amount of evidence as Jesus and christianity.

The same evidence of Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark and the flood and bears killing a bunch of kids for calling a guy “baldie”.

Evolution of course disproves Adam and Eve (Jesus talks about Adam and Eve).

Real evidence and real science disproves Noah’s ark and the flood.

And seriously? Who are we kidding about the kids and the bears? How loving and compassionate of God. Great story. Derp derp.

Beercan then says I use my usual bias and faulty logic. HAHAHAHA

That really hurts coming from someone who is religious.

Beercan is saying I’m biased because I don’t believe things that make no sense, have no evidence and are not credible for multiple number of reasons. That hardly counts as biased, but rational.

Beercan is saying he isn’t biased I guess, or not acknowledging that he believes non-credible things without evidence and believes his contradictory, evidenceless religion and messiah are real. He also is biased that he isn’t brainwashed, when that is the only way anyone could believe such ridiculous religions based on no evidence and denying science and counter evidence.

Beercan next says I’m using faulty logic, but is of course either insane, lying, stupid, or really never put any thought in what this means.

Let’s go over this ONE MORE TIME!

a) No reliable, or credible evidence OUTSIDE of the bible.

– The bible is not proof of anything and the bible cannot prove the bible.

b) Within the first century and not based completely off of hearsay.

Like maybe from some of these people:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

c) Not hundreds of years later and based on hearsay.

d) The writer was alive and not born decades to hundreds of years later from previous events.

e) The sources are supposed to be non-christian and not said by multiple historians and scholars to be forgeries.

So this is faulty logic how this is credible, or reliable again how?

Beercan then ends this entry by saying this:

“In short, the ONLY two reasons that
BB(s)J gives for discounting what Phlegon had written is: 1) Christians recorded it, and probably lied. 2) time from when they recorded it to when it supposedly was originally written.”

So let’s go over this AGAIN and maybe, just maybe Beercan will finally get it:

– A hundred years later was SUPPOSEDLY written about by someone WHO WASN’T THERE.

– Was ONLY quoted 200-500 years later by christians.

– They talk about an ECLIPSE anyway, not Jesus.

– Documented by people with an agenda ( since when has Beercan been able to give a defense that the church hasn’t lied, deceived and been completely corrupt since the beginning?)

Whether Beercan accepts it, or not, these make it completely non-credible. The funniest thing again is how Beercan agrees with me in his last article before this one and straight out agrees that it isn’t credible about Thallus being credible. That was funny.

Am I the only one who wishes that Beercan would go over his entries and fix the grammer and spelling by the way?

Look forward to more articles from Beercan to show how delusional, pathetic and brainwashed christians can be. Beercan seems to have slowed down though. Hope he doesn’t stop and he keeps on going.
————-

Advertisements