The Many Lies of the Crackpipe Christian

From May 1, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/buy-bullshit-journal-vs-jesus-part-one.html?m=1

Crackpipe said:

“1) BB(s)J is NOT a historian. That is, while he does have his bias and, yes, beliefs, he is not bound by the standards that historian scholars say a Bart Ehrman hold themselves to. If it fits BB(s)J’s belief mold, it works for him no matter what.”
————-

I have no religious beliefs. I’m an Atheist.
:
:
Next:

“2) Youtube is one of his favorite means of “evidence.” Now, before I am accused of discarding evidence due to it’s source, I’m not. Each source he does provide stands on it’s own merits. However, that being said, I’m waiting to see a peer reviewed paper (which atheists LOVE) that cites a youtube video as a source.”
———–

My sources do not stand on their own, Crackpipe is just too stupid to accept, or listen to what they say.

If it’s scientifically backed and in a youtube vid with scholars and experts, then it isn’t standing on it’s own.
:
:
Next:

“3) BB(s)J seems to believe that rhetoric and random thoughts equal arguments.”
————-

I believe that speaking well and showing people correct information and helpful examples to compare to are beneficial.

I also show facts and correct information, aswell as show plausible possibilities, not faith based delusions that rest on nothing but the supernatural.
:
:
Next:

“4) If it doesn’t make sense to BB(s)J is can’t and doesn’t make sense at all and MUST at all costs be discarded.”
————-

WRONG! If it doesn’t make sense to me then Crackpipe is supposed to explain how it makes sense, which after asking many times in several blogs, he does not.

Rather than explain, Crackpipe just ALWAYS says the same thing about “just because it doesn’t make sense to BBJ doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.”
:
:
Next:

“Now, I haven’t read through this post and will respond as I read it. So let’s hope that BB(s)J throws us some curveballs and actually has an argument this time!”
————–

I always have great arguments but Crackpipe simply either dismisses them
like a coward, or ignores them.
:
:
Next:

“Already off the bat, we have BB(s)J taking the authoritative position just because, well….he doesn’t believe there is evidence for Jesus…”
————-

I KNOW there is no evidence of Jesus and there’s nothing that I’ve heard that is.

I’ve also heard many evidences AGAINST the existence of Jesus, however I never discounted the possibility of a pathetic nobody that this character might be vaguely based on, we just have no evidence of him.
.
.
Next:

“All of Julius Caesar’s evidence is made up of hearsay! That is, what someone (whom we can’t question because they are dead) reports to say or record about someone else. Why? Because NOBODY who was around at that time to report directly to us is alive! We have to take what the reporter says and weigh it against what others say and how they say it – again, what historians do as a living! at that SPECIFIC time and place…not with our 21st century eyes. Which is exactly what BB(s)J does.”
——————-

Julius Caesar was NOT hearsay when he was reported by multiple sources and accomplished many things. He was also not a supernatural being who people created a religion around and were motivated to do so.

Caesar had reports about him AT THE TIME he lived, not 30-100 years later.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar
:
:
Next:

“D) it was all written in the 2nd century.

This is a fair enough point. However, this also shows the cherry picking that BB(s) does as it pertains to ancient documents.
————–

Not cherry picking, but sorting out facts and truth and seperating them from lies, hearsay and myth.
:
:
Next:

“Yeah…the Osiris think has been killed so many times that’s it’s not even funny…plus it’s from a blog. If I offered a blog post up as evidence BB(s)J would have my head!”
————

The Osiris thing has not been killed whatsoever and I had shown Crackpipe clips where Richard Carrier explains the significance of Osiris and also how the Romans also worshipped Osiris even up to the time of Constantine and that Osiris evolved into Serapis.
:
:
Next:

Sunday, May 4, 2014

“We shall now move onto BB(s)J’s other pieces of evidence that don’t matter to him and see his methodology for coming to the conclusion that Thallus isn’t evidence. (Hint: he just uses opinion, bias, and incorrect info and that is all!)”
————

They matter to me because idiots like Crackpipe try to use it to prove a lie even though it’s meaningless.

I’m not using opinion, but simple common knowledge.

I’m not using it bias, I’m simply stating the truth.

I post what I have every indication of as being correct.

If something has reasons why it isn’t credible or reliable then it ISN’T EVIDENCE!
:
:
Next:

“In any event what we see is what little lengths BB(s)J goes to make his argument.
—————

Why should I have to go great lengths by saying something was a copy of a copy of something that doesn’t prove anything because of the biased source, and also because the “evidence” is just that there was an eclipse?

An eclipse mentioned in the fictionally proven gospels written 40-60 years later that doesn’t prove anything.

– Why did I need to go through great lengths for something so meaningless and petty? I didn’t.
:
:
Next:

“2) arbitrarily accepts what “evidence” is or isn’t. Based soley on his opinion and not methodology.”
————-

No, I accept things as “evidence” because they actually ARE evidence, not something that is faith based only, like Crackpipe does.
:
:
Next:

“3) And using the ol’ “Christians Lie” argument without basis or evidence.”
—————

Christians do lie and quite often.

Maybe Crackpipe should remember all the things taken out of the bible in the apocrypha and also the fact that the bible has countless forgeries in it and things that weren’t written by Paul, but were said to be.

How about the many forgeries in the gospels?

How about how Eusebius really was a known forger and that it was common knowledge that he was?

As Bart Ehrman agrees in his book Did Jesus Exist on page 139 he says about if someone is biased against the subject matter then those things have to be considered.
:
:
Next:

“So we are left with ignorance and opinion for BB(s)J’s argument against Thallus.”
—————

No, copies of copies of someone else’s work that nobody has ever seen, that merely say that there was “an eclipse” which were written about in a book that is confirmed to be a fictional fairytale, really AREN’T what someone considers evidence.

Crackpipe then agrees later on in the same article that he doesn’t find Thallus work to be believable evidence of Jesus, so WTF?!
:
:
Wednesday, May 7, 2014

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

Next:

“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.”
————

That’s a lie. The fact that there are none of his works containing any of the Jesus mentions. Just christians saying they read quotes of Jesus. This was of course not them showing any actual works of Phlegon, but instead just saying “they saw it”.

Which is of course the equivalent of a known pathological liar telling people they saw Big foot.
:
:
Next:

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-vs-jesus-part-four-mara-bar.html?m=1

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

“c) Was 40 years later from when Jesus was supposedly killed.

That’s pretty current!”
—————

That’s a total LIE!
40 years later even NOW is NOT something considered current.

Almost 2000 years ago with barely anything that could be considered reliable media and everything being based on superstition, hearsay and myth, WAS NOT CURRENT.

This isn’t opinion, or bias, this is common knowledge and rational thought!
:
:
Next:

“Well that is what we are trying to determine! Lol. We haven’t gotten through all the sources yet, nor finished with this one! Though pretty much most historians disagree with this contention. In any event this point is moot in regards to the quotes we are dealing with here.”
——————-

This is a lie. Most historians know that there is nothing historical about the new testament.

So lie, lie, lie.
:
:
Next:

“But Bart Ehrman BELIEVES Jesus existed and that there is extra Biblical evidence for Jesus.”
————

Lie about the extra biblical.

Ehrman clearly says in his book Did Jesus Exist that even if the outside sources weren’t forgeries (which he doesn’t deny that some are) that there is no evidence or reason to think that they weren’t using chistian hearsay and nothing else.

Which would be no different than someone talking about greek gods based on hearsay.
:
:
Next:

“Now obviously BB(s)J won’t admit at all that this could be Jesus, but that’s rejecting evidence based soley on bias.”
———–

No. I’m rejecting it because it isn’t evidence of anything and proves and shows nothing.

Because it doesn’t prove anything and is too vague to actually mean anything.
:
:
Next:

“Can BB(s)J give ANY justification beyond speculation to think MBS is writing about another king? Can BB(s)J make the four facts for anyone else? Can BB(s)J give us any reasons that Jesus doesn’t fit the four facts?

Well, if not then it does look as we have possible evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible!”
——————-

No, this is evidence of nothing, except about how dishonest and desperate Crackpipe is.

73-200 AD based on hearsay, or misinformation is evidence of nothing.
:
:
Saturday, May 10, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-responds.html?m=1

Next:

“There’s really not much in the way of bothering to reply to. BB(s)J just repeats his points- he gives us no further justification.”
—————

That’s a lie of course since I add quite a lot of things and lots of reasons.

It’s not my fault that Crackpipe ignores everything and lies.
:
:
Next:

“He also shows a lack of understanding of what is being argued…”
————-

That is a lie of course since Crackpipe is the one who argues that things are evidence of Jesus and then later on agrees they aren’t.

It is also a lie because Crackpipe is the one who doesn’t understand how these things really are NOT evidence of Jesus.
:
:
Next:

“Example: whether or not I believe what the Quran says about Muhammad has NO BEARING on whether or not Sextus is true or not! Sextus’ validity is based on what we can determine about it with the information we have. Not based on one’s belief in the Quran.”
————–

Crackpipe is lying in the sense that I was making an additional point regarding why he was delusional in the first place.

This is nothing more than Crackpipe pretending he was actually making a point since Sextus was quoting something we have no record of that Crackpipe agrees is not evidence of anything.

So Crackpipe’s entire point of arguing about Thallus, or Sextus in the first place was nothing more than a time wasting lie.
:
:
Next:

“it’s just another example of the poor, dare I say shitty, logic BB(s)J uses to make, defend, and believe his “arguments.”
——————

No it’s actually an example of Crackpipe not addressing anything I said in what I wrote and doing nothing but deflecting.
:
:
Wednesday, May 14, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-vs-jesus-part-five-lucian-of.html?m=1

Next:

“First though, have to admit that I believe – so far – this to be the worse attempt by BB(s)J to discredit something. For one, he has very, very little in way of critique what is ACTUALLY written. So little, that he incorrectly address what is written once, and never again…”
——————-

There really wasn’t anything to address, like all the others.

This is not evidence of Jesus and it takes more faith to believe any of the evidence of Jesus than actually believing in Jesus.

I didn’t incorrectly address anything here. That is a lie.
:
:
Next:

“In BB(s)J’s mind, perhaps, nothing historically factual can be passed down to the following generations beyond 100 years?”
—————-

No, it’s the fact that what he is writing about is common knowledge based on christian HEARSAY.

That’s it. Hearsay and nothing else. Crackpipe’s hero Ehrman even agrees.
:
:
Next:

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

He’s aware of christian hearsay and nothing else. He’s aware of their delusion.

So no, that is a lie.
:
:
Next:

“This is another writing I don’t believe BB(s)J bothered to actually read.”
————–

Of course I read it and it was nothing but hearsay.
:
;
Next:

“This is why I repeatedly point out that time alone, is not a factor in determining the validity of a writing – especially ancient texts.

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.

Not to mention this is a non-Christian source! A hostile source to be exact! Which is important.”
—————

This is an absolute lie because time is absolutely important when there is no evidence and there should have been and time is especially more important when there is no evidence but hearsay.
:
:
Next:

“1) he is making fun of Christians believing they are ‘immortal” and for following a crucified sage’s laws. In essence that they are following some guy who was crucified and gave them some laws to live by tht they still did nearly 100 years later.

2) he is NOT making fun of them following a guy that didn’t exist!”
—————–

This is of course another lie since there is no evidence that this is based on anything more than Christian hearsay.

The same hearsay that created the gospels from Paul, who simply wrote about conversations with his imaginary friend Jesus.
:
:
Next:

“1) Jesus existed and Lucian knew this from history passed down via various means and put it into the story.

2) Jesus didn’t exist and Lucian wrongly believed he did, via bad history being passed down through various means.

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!)

Now, any of the above is possible, but are any of the plausible? Only 1) and 2) are the most plausible.”
—————-

No, because this was nothing but a hearsay story told by christians without evidence, so 1 is a lie as an option.

It was a hearsay story that was no different than Hercules and Zeus and Lucian knew that and based it on that christian hearsay, so 2 is a lie.

Since it was just meaningless christian hearsay and nothing else and there was no evidence (because if there was then Lucian would have believed and wrote that he did). So this is a lie.
:
:
Next:

“In short: yes. 1. Giver further outside evidence, which we will get to in other posts.”
————

There is no outside evidence that isn’t completely non-credible and non-reliable because everything about Jesus is based on hearsay.
:
:
Next:

“If BB(s)J wishes to argue that 2 is more plausible, he needs to provide justification.”
————-

No, that would be Crackpipe that needs to provide the evidence, or justification.

There is no evidence for Jesus ever and the gospels are completely non-historical and hearsay, aswell as contradicting themselves.

Paul is also not evidence for Jesus, with no evidence Paul knew anybody who knew Jesus and no evidence Paul was talking about anything other than scripture and Jesus in outer space.
:
:
Next:

“If BB(s)J has justification beyond time, he hasn’t shown it. And time alone, as we know, is not justification itself – that would make it a circular, and a logically invalid, argument.”
————–

No it wouldn’t make it a circular argument. That is a lie.

I’m not the one with no evidence who believes in things that don’t make any sense.

Saying “that just because he thinks it doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense” does not explain how it makes sense. So that is nothing but deflection.
:
:
Next:

“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.”
————

That’s a lie. I don’t believe that people who simply might believe in a “god” are brainwashed, even though I don’t agree with it.

That is nothing more than “deism” and is harmless and innocent really.

Religion can only be believed by people through child indoctrination and brainwashing when older by being exploited by being caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.

Crackpipe has yet to provide an alternative method.
:
:
Next:

“In addition, a person’s existence is not dependent on WHAT people believe about them.”
—————

Of course it is and Crackpipe is the evidence of that contradiction.

Crackpipe believes Jesus existed, even though there is no evidence Jesus even did exist.

Crackpipe only believes Jesus existed because he is child indoctrinated or brainwashed when older.
:
:
Next:

“That people believed in other mythological gods or someone’s claim they are god has nothing to do with if Jesus – the person – existed.

Irrelevant statements are not arguments, thus can be ignored as such.”
————–

This is a lie because it isn’t an irrelevant argument and is a valid point.

People like Lucian believed in the Greek gods which had no evidence, like Crackpipe believes in Jesus without evidence.

It shows that Crackpipe only believes his religion because he is brainwashed and he should be able to see the similarity to his god without evidence.
:
:
Next:

“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…

But as we saw, gives no justification for why 1) is an issue against the writing. And 2) is no hurdle either as clearly it’s Jesus being alluded to!”
—————

Crackpipe is of course lying again.

The whole point was that there is no evidence and that this is nothing but complete hearsay based on nothing but people telling stories.

The other LIE is that I wasn’t referring the fact that Lucian is simply parotting christian hearsay and talking about the hearsay story with it’s hearsay character.
:
:
Thursday, May 15, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-vs-jesus-part-6-tacitus.html?m=1
:
:
Next:

“As the link says, there’s way more to what Tacitus wrote. Not just in Annals but in his other works as well. The small part regarding Christ’s crucifixion, found in Annals, is almost equal to an aside
——————-

Nope. That’s a lie.

Just parrotted christian hearsay. Nothing more.
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J fails to take into account the context of the writing, and that the WHOLE passage must be considered to ascertain which “Christ” is being written about. Tacitus gives us that context.”
————-

I failed at nothing, that’s a lie.

The passage is hearsay and Bart Ehrman agrees.
:
:
Next:

“Well what I think is that you, BB(s)J, have failed completely here, again. And that you finish off with irrelevant argument just highlights it.”
—————

No, this is a lie. My point that this is no different than us talking about Joesph Smith getting golden plates from an angel in the 1800s TODAY, which is not evidence and Crackpipe does not believe the mormon origin story.
:
:
Next:

“Well, as I have still not used one Christian source to make my point I still won’t here when I quote Bart Ehrman on Tacitus: “Tacitus’s report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius’s reign.”
—————–

Bart clearly says in his book on page 194 in the electronic ibook version that Tacitus is based on hearsay, nothing else.
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J is free to reject the evidence, it’s a choice we all have. But he does so with no justification, thus he doesn’t make any argument as to why we shouldn’t.”
—————–

That is a lie. I give several good reasons why to reject Tacitus as evidence of Jesus.

I will list them again via copy paste:

a) This only has Tacitus talking about the superstition that christians believed, NOTHING ELSE.

b) When speaks of Pontius Pilot, Tacitus is simply repeating THE CLAIM that christians made, nothing else.

c) If he actually had documented verification of the execution then he would have also verified Jesus NAME, whatever that was.

d) Tacitus merely repeats that they followed “Christus” from what Tacitus was told.

– “Christus” means “messiah”, or “anointed one”.

– This just means that “they followed some guy”.

– It’s still a 2nd century claim that is based on hearsay 82 years later from the time of Jesus’s supposed death, by someone simply repeating a people’s delusion and nothing else.

– This is no different than simply restating what Mormons believed over 150 years ago.

– Do christians believe any of the claims that mormons made about Joseph Smith?

—- So why is Crackpipe saying that I’m giving no justification when I clearly am?
:
:
Thursday, May 15, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/buy-bull-journal-misquotes-bart.html?m=1
:
:
Next:

“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.
So, no BB(s)J, neither Bart nor I base our conclusions SOLEY on Paul.”
—————-

I thoroughly read the book of Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist and if you look at the ibook version it again clearly mentions on the following pages:

182 (Pliny is hearsay)

194 (Tacitus is hearsay)

231-233 (Josephus is hearsay on both sources even if they aren’t forgeries which he gives credit to the possibility)
:
:
Friday, May 16, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/buy-bull-journal-fires-back-sort-of.html?m=1
:
:
“Not sure why he chooses to let them get under his skin like that, but there it is. Guess that’s the price one pays when they chose to be an “angry atheist” (as he described himself on his twitter account) rather than trying to be a happy one.”
—————–

Nobody was getting under my skin and I had planned to get off Twitter for a while and made frequent announcements I was leaving because I am just too busy.
:
:
Next:

“Example: I have faith that my wife loves me. I can’t prove it, of course, but I do have evidence that she does upon which my faith is built.”
————–

This is definitely a lie because Crackpipe is far too much of a pathetic douchbag loser for anyone to want to be with him.
:
:
Next:

“As for wanting something to be true being faith: wrong. I can want something to be true and know that it won’t. So how could I have faith while KNOWING otherwise? A definition can’t contradict itself.”
—————–

Crackpipe just told 2 lies.

You can’t have “faith” if you KNOW something isn’t true, because you have evidence. Then it isn’t “faith”.

The evidence itself however should not require faith to be evidence though.

A definition HAS just contradicted itself, because Crackpipe just contradicted himself with his horribly incorrect definition.
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J is upset that I didn’t see his replies as something worth addressing. Sometimes, BB(s)J,arguments speak for themselves and still hold even if you replied to them (and in some cases are helped!)”
—————-

This is a lie. Crackpipe does not reply because he can’t argue with what I’ve said, so he simply ignores it.

Very similar to what a coward would do. Sorry, EXACTLY what a coward would do.
:
:
Next:

“I have explained how someone can use some of the writings as evidence, BB(s)J hasn’t addressed those points- just says I didn’t do it.”
————-

I’m still saying it, because it’s a complete and total lie. Crackpipe explained NOTHING.
:
:
Next:

“Also, these aren’t just my views, but when noted views of historians too (inuding secular historians).

BB(s)J would like you to believe that nobody finds any of the evidence credible, but in fact that’s the fringe view.”
——————

Like Bart Ehrman who says in his book that they are just hearsay even if they aren’t forgeries? He also doesn’t deny that some could be forgeries.
:
:
Next:

“Faith is not an epistemology. That is faith is not a way of knowing truths. I can’t come to know anything via faith, that’s not what faith is or “does.”
————

This is normally true, but where Crackpipe is concerned it is an outrageous lie!

Crackpipe has no evidence for anything he believes in his religion. Nothing, zero, zip.

It takes more faith to believe in the “evidence” of Jesus, than of Jesus.
:
:
Next:

“Faith is a product of evidence and evaluation.”
—————

That’s a total lie. Faith is not based on evidence because if you have evidence then you have knowledge.

Faith has nothing to do with evaluating, it is only about hoping.

How does Crackpipe’s definition fit in here in wikipedia at all?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]

“Not based on proof” Nice.
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J has faith too. He can’t prove his atheism, but despite this he believes it to be true: that’s faith!”
—————

This is an incredible lie. A very stupid one.

As an Atheist I have no faith.

I can prove my Atheism because I can prove I’m an Atheist.

I have no religious belief, or faith, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES ME AN ATHEIST!

I’m an Atheist because I have no belief in gods, or religions and there is no evidence that is realistic, or believable.
:
:
Next:

“What I would like Beercan to explain to everyone is why he doesn’t believe that Mohammed flew back and forth to heaven on a winged horse, but believes that Jesus was a god (on no evidence)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about. That BB(s)J feels the need to change topics is telling…”
—————–

Of course it does. It was supposed to tell us WHY Crackpipe doesn’t believe islam and the magical stories about Mohammed are true, but believes the stories about Jesus.

The answer is of course “because the islam story is ridiculous” which is what Atheists say about ALL religions.

Since Crackpipe can’t answer then that merely means he is a lying coward who is afraid to admit he has no answer.
:
:
Next:

“As the phrase goes: show, don’t tell. Or: put up, or shut up.”
—————–

Well Crackpipe is not following his own advice because he ignores everything.

Examples:

– How the Jesus sacrifice thing makes any sense.

– How Crackpipe became a christian?

– Why does he believe the stories of Jesus without evidence, but not Mohammed?

—- I repeatedly asked these but get no answer.
:
:
Next:

“What so far BB(s)J has done is = Nuh uh!!”
—————-

That is a lie and Crackpipe knows it.

– What Crackpipe has done is not show how any “evidence” of Jesus was actually evidence of anything.

– He has not answered how christianity makes any sense.

– He has not proved he is not brainwashed.

– He has not said why he believed christianity and Jesus over Mohammed and islam.

– He has not told us how he became a christian, if he was child indoctrinated, or brainwashed when older.

These questions were asked repeatedly but were just deflected and ignored.
:
:
Next:

“Well maybe we can touch on each of those later. I mean if it’s okay with you, since I don’t seem to pick the topics YOU want me to.”
——————-

This is of course a complete lie and the only reason I commented on picking topics was because Crackpipe bugged me about answering a specific article and then responds to another article instead.

It’s not my fault that Crackpipe is too stupid to see how dumb that is and why I even brought that issue up.
:
:
Next:

“”- The last time I checked, not one single thing in the bible, or christianity was backed, or supported by science, or 99.9% of history.

So bottom line:

– Beercan hasn’t disproved a single thing

– Beercan has lied”

There’s the “lied” words. Odd though in this whole post BB(s)J failed to point out my lies, or actually address what I wrote. Just stated lots if things but never showed what I wrote was wrong (or a lie).”
—————–

Another lie. I extensively explain WHY in every response. I prove exactly how and why what Crackpipe says is a lie and wrong.

Crackpipe is well aware of this so I don’t know who he’s kidding.
:
:
Next:

Saturday, May 17, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-vs-jesus-part-7-pliny-younger-and.html?m=1
:
:
Next:

“However, as we are discovering: BB(s)J gives us very little in the way of actual argument against these writings. (Even on the one I agree with him on).”
————

As I repeatedly have shown how Crackpipe simply just ignores what I say and never addresses it. So he has lied.
:
:
Next:

“Yeah, like that idiot Bart Ehrman, right? Or the majority of historical scholars – damn them for misleading and using any of this shit for evidence for Jesus – you tell them BB(s)J! They should all have to give back their doctorates for such lies!”
——————

Crackpipe really should read Bart Ehrman’s book “Did Jesus Exist” and he might just quit using Bart as a back-up of support.

Read page 182 in the ibook version where Bart AGAIN clearly says how the words of Pliny are NOT evidence of Jesus.

So another lie told by Crackpipe and when he told me I should read the book he was implying that he HAD read it. Obviously he didn’t.
:
:
Next:

“NO CHRISTIAN thinks Jesus killed himself. Take that back, there might be one…(there’s always and exception that proves the rule).”
———–

So they don’t think Jesus is God?

How could “God” be killed unless he allowed himself to be? Which is the equivalent.

Therefore God as Jesus killed himself.
:
:
Next:

“Second, he really doesn’t know his Gospel or the meaning of Christ’s death. Which is to be expected. He doesn’t want to understand, nor does he really care. A false view works better for him than what is actually true in the Christian view of salvation…but I digress, let’s get to the meat of his argument!”
——————

So since I repeatedly asked for an explanation and Crackpipe never explained, then that means that Crackpipe doesn’t know either and is just pretending that he has some sort of clue.
:
:
Next:

“Where in the world do you EVER see someone seriously say that these works “prove” Jesus existed?

Hint: the P-word is more often used by atheists.”
—————-

Crackpipe is misleadingly trying to convince us that he has not done this with several “evidences” of Jesus.

He would be lying if he said he wasn’t being a hypocrite here since he has said in our exchanges about how things were evidence of Jesus.

For example:

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-vs-jesus-part-6-tacitus.html?m=1

“So it appears, for sure here, we have good, solid evidence for Jesus outside the Bible.”

and

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-vs-jesus-part-four-mara-bar.html?m=1

“Well, if not then it does look as we have possible evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible!”
:
:
Next:

“Even in court (which BB(s)J likes to use as an example) proof is ONLY established to the boundaries of “beyond” reasonable doubt. Because 100 percent certainty can NEVER be established when it comes to historical accounts.

Those who deny this, are well…ignorant of reality and afraid of its implications.”
—————-

Then Crackpipe is obviously VERY ignorant of reality.

Crackpipe is the one CLAIMING 100% CERTAINTY! SO WTF?!

He’s claiming 100% certainty Jesus was resurrected.

He’s claiming 100% certainty Jesus was/is divine.

If he then were to say he ISN’T then he obviously doesn’t have “faith”

Either way Crackpipe is a liar.
:
:
Next:

“There are many sites out there that show that the Osiris/Jesus connection is such a shitty argument. Don’t believe me?
Google Osiris vs. Jesus.
Literally, do those words exactly.

Now, I have yet to come across one actual historian that uses this argument…if BB(s)J can find one I would love to see who. Even most Myther historians don’t use it.
Why?
Because it’s bullshit.
Odd though, that in the day that the internet is damn near available to everyone (the library is free folks!) this shit still get’s put out there!
————-

That is of course another lie.

Richard Carrier uses it quite often and he bases it off other people.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XORm2QtR-os

Crackpipe is lying then if Crackpipe says that this isn’t true:

– Osiris: Those baptized into his death and resurrection are saved in the afterlife.

The above is very true about the legend of Osiris and it also is similar to Jesus.
:
:
Next:

“So is it really possible that the Christians were following Serapis?

Yeah, if Hadrian’s definitely not real report was…well, um…real.”
———–

The report is real. From second hand sources, but the REPORT itself is real.

Just like the 3 sources of Jesus are real, but based on hearsay.

Amusing how Crackpipe attempts to say how the gospels, Paul and the 3 outside sources are real, but he dismisses this report that is supposed to be from Hadrian.
:
:
Next:

“- Could even have been written in the 15 century.”

Um……wait…..
PBS in my link says it got ITS Pliny quote from Josephus….

Shit, we have a problem.

Time to call in the “impartial” wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger#cite_note-Pliny_10.96-21
————-

It says they found it in the late 1400s (like I said).

“Manuscripts[edit]
In France Giovanni Giocondo discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger’s letters containing his correspondence with Trajan. He published it in Paris dedicating the work to Louis XII. Two Italian editions of Pliny’s Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.[27]”

So again, that is a lie.
:
:
Next:

Sunday, May 18, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-vs-jesus-part-8-celsus-or-bbsj.html?m=1

” So we are ready to see BB(s)J to admit this is evidence!!!”
————–

Lie. 140 years later, by someone writing a nonsensical version of a story that no one has even heard of, that’s merely based on another nonsensical story, IS NOT EVIDENCE!

As Bart Ehrman says on page 138.
:
:
Next:

“No, read the quotes again – the first quote has NOTHING to do with Christianity and ONLY about Jesus. Not about Christians, but about JESUS.”
————-

No, that is a lie. It is about the nonsensical belief what christians believed, regarding their leader they believed existed and regarding how the story of christianity is based on a lie and a fraud.
:
:
Next:

“b) This was over 130 years after Jesus’s supposed death was claimed to have happened.”

But as we know this isn’t really an issue as you make it out to be, and he says “Jesus!” you have been complaining the others didn’t, so here’s one that does!”
————–

That is a lie of course. 130 years later from someone who wasn’t there and is basing what he says on hearsay, is a HUGE ISSUE!

So definitely a huge LIE!

Again, Bart’s book Did Jesus Exist page 138.
:
:
Next:

“Ironically: I didn’t think this was that great of evidence either. However, you just let your bias shine though and to what extant you are willing to go to try and hold your belief.

Too funny!”
—————-

2 lies.

– Saying I have a bias because I said that the nonsense that christians believe in isn’t the same nonsense as the nonsense of the story of Celsus…. isn’t a bias, it’s a FACT.

– I wasn’t believing either one, just saying that the story didn’t back anything up.

– I don’t have a belief, I have a lack of belief based on lack of evidence and lack of anything in any religion making any sense.

– Crackpipe has a belief in something that makes no sense and has no evidence.
:
:
Next:

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

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

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

I do no such thing. Crackpipe is lying. Unless Crackpipe is talking about himself.
:
:
Next:

“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.”
——————

That is only a half lie, but is still a lie.

I say that because someone wasn’t an eye witness to the event if it ACTUALLY APPLIED.

The situations I mention definitely apply.
:
:
Next:

“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.
————-

That is a lie. Crackpipe is the one who is required to tell us how this is credible in any way.

130 years later about something that makes no sense and has no evidence is what automatically makes this non-credible.

This is time wasting deflection and nothing else.
:
:
Next:

“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.
————–

Well as I do know that Bart Ehrman said that Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger only had christian sources as their info, that would give us the logical conclusion that Lucian only had christian sources also.

So that is another lie from Crackpipe.
:
:
Next:

“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.”
—————–

Well Crackpipe’s buddy Bart clearly said in his book, Did Jesus Exist, on page 194 that Tacitus got his info from christian hearsay sources.

– We know that christian sources aren’t reliable (multiple proven forgeries, the apocrypha, gospel contradictions, Eusebius, etc, etc).

Crackpipe can look it up if he doesn’t believe me. Page 194.
:
:
Next:

“He then goes on a rhetorical rant…

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

I do address the question Crackpipe asked and in fine detail.

Crackpipe is lying again.
:
:
Next:

“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.”
————–

Clearly implying that is a hearsay belief and that he is basing eveything he’s writing on hearsay.

Just like Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny were basing everthing they knew about christians and Jesus on hearsay.
:
:
Next:

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

I gave several reasons why and to suggest I didn’t is an outright lie.
:
:
Next:

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

I gave several reasons in my response.
:
:
Next:

“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.”
—————-

Crackpipe is such an unbelievable liar.

If someone looks at what I wrote for May 14th they’ll see that what I wrote thoroughly explained my point about the time issues.

I shouldn’t have had to, but I did anyway because I knew Crackpipe would expect it, because I knew he’d be grasping at straws and doing whatever he could to timewaste.
:
:
Next:

“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.”
————

So 2 lies.

I thoroughly answered.

My rant wasn’t irrelevant. It answered him thoroughly.
:
:
Next:

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

This is another flat out lie.

Crackpipe did no such thing.
:
:
Next:

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

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

Except that Joseph Smith isn’t the issue, but OBVIOUSLY Moroni and the plates ARE.

So it’s not a false comparison. That is a lie. Why would Crackpipe think I was talking about Smith?
:
:
Next:

“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.
————-

No Crackpipe did not.

That is a lie.
:
:
Next:

“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.

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

I wasn’t pointless because it shows the stupidity of the non-existent point Crackpipe was in no way making.

The comparison I made was similar to the one Crackpipe was making.

Being 130 years later wouldn’t make vampires real if there was never any evidence for them in the first place.
:
:
Next:

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

That’s it!

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

No that’s a lie. I listed several.

Also as Bart says on page 138 how time really IS an issue.
:
:
Next:

“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…”
—————-

Complete lie.

Crackpipe did nothing but lie and say that he did. I in no way killed my argument.
:
:
Next:

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

It actually wasn’t that. That is a lie.

It’s just that I’m not used to someone being as stupid as Crackpipe and I was doing my best to make something that was so undeniably and completely obvious, a clear thing for him, but Crackpipe just wasn’t getting it.

Like trying to convince a burning man to let me throw water on him and the man not letting me.
:
:
Next:

“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.

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.”
—————

No I don’t assume. I know.

I know because there is no evidence of Jesus and that evidence doesn’t exist and that nothing makes any sense.

I know that Paul was not evidence of Jesus and Paul is the closet thing that is supposed to come as evidence for Jesus.

I know that when people like Bart Ehrman also say the same thing that there is no evidence other than christian hearsay as references, that really there is nothing else other than christian hearsay.

I also know that Crackpipe is just wasting everyones time and really can’t do anything else but waste everyones time.
:
:
Next:

“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?”
—————-

Nope. They don’t. Many also find them forgeries.

Bart Ehrman himself admits that the 3 sources are nothing but christian hearsay (pages 182, 194, 231-233).
:
:
Next:

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

I disagree with Bart Ehrman on using Paul as evidence, but Crackpipe has stated in the past that when Bart says that “the gospels are not historical and are not reliable sources” and gives multiple good reasons WHY, Crackpipe then says Bart is just giving his opinion.

As for the 3 sources Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny, Bart has said they are based on nothing but christian hearsay.

So this is again another LIE of Crackpipe’s.
:
:
Next:

“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 is another lie and I list multiple reasons why that isn’t true.

But reminding Crackpipe about what Bart says about the time issue on page 138.
:
:
Next:

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

HAHAHA Complete and total lie.

There were not. There were however a looong list of people who should have told us, but didn’t.

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

Crackpipe can’t tell us who these historians he mentions are either.
:
:
Next:

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

Another lie.

I have no religious faith and there is no evidence of anything that should give me any faith in any religion.

Atheism= a lack of faith.
:
:
Next:

“He does try and address my points, but with rhetoric…”
————-

I really do address everything, but Crackpipe then uses more painful usage of the word “rhetoric”.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/rhetoric

I still wonder if he’s ever looked up the word.
:
:
Next:

“Nothing worth replying to.”
——————–

Which is a lie.

Crackpipe merely is avoiding and deflecting because he has no argument and no defense for his religion which makes no sense and has no evidence.
:
:
Next:

“”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.”
————–

That is a lie. I do speak about what he says and on many points and many issues but Crackpipe simply just dismisses them and then pretends that I never said anything.
:
:
Next:

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

Another lie. I abandoned no points.

I can really hardly wait to post all these then pretend Crackpipe does not exist and ignore him completely and no more time is wasted on such a sleazy dishonest and stupid person.
:
:
Next:

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

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

ARGH. This is what I’m talking about time wasting and why Crackpipe really is just nothing but a time wasting lying idiot.

I mean I just wanna be done with this but Crackpipe wastes sooo much time.

Here goes again:

I said:

– Lucian believed in the greek gods.

– Lucian would have said he believed in “the leader of christians” if he actually believed he existed.

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

– Lucian 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.
:
:
Next:

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

I have no belief! I’m an Atheist. So that is a lie.

Unless we’re talking humanism, which isn’t religious belief, but instead just a simple belief that helping people is an important thing.
:
:
Next:

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

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

Another stupid and truly pathetic lie.

Of which I just showed.
:
:
Next:

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

That is a lie. Of course I can.

Multiple sources that are unbiased is good and not being supernaturally based to support a religion.

Religions are based on superstition and exaggeratted stories that wow people into becoming members.

Stories like in the apocrypha, the many forgeries and the gospels all have made up, supernatural nonsense in them to brainwash and mislead delusional people.

Pure history with proper unbiased multiple sources are not.
:
:
Next:

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/summary-of-bbsj-vs-jesus.html?m=1
:
:
“Rather I just wanted to discuss a few things regarding the evidence for Jesus.

BB(s)J is right on one thing: there is no evidence for Jesus in the 1st century…OUTSIDE the Bible.

However we do have evidence within the 1st century when we include the Bible as source material.

In fact, we have source material from someone who KNEW Jesus’ brother: Paul.”
—————-

No we DO NOT.

All references to Jesus brothers can NOT be proven to be anything other than talking about what believers and baptized people called themselves “brother and sister”.

Paul’s rantings are nothing more than him talking about his imaginary friend in outer space and scripture quotes from the hebrew bible.

As explained:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2839
:
:
Next:

“Due to his beliefs BB(s)J thinks the Bible cannot be used as a source. He is free to do that! Doesn’t mean he’s right.”
————–

Again, my only belief is humanism, which is the belief that you put people’s well-being over the beliefs of any religion, make the world a better place, contribute to benefit people’s lives.

As an Atheist though I have a LACK of belief in a religion, or a god. That is what makes me an Atheist.

The bible CAN’T be used as a source because that is circular reasoning AND there is nothing to back it up.

The bible is a historically false book that bases itself off of the old testament which has many plagarized stories and the new testament which has proven forgeries, lies and bases itself off of old testament (which is nonsense) and has multiple contradictions.

Christianity, Yahweh and Jesus also are no different than the over 3000 other fictional gods throughout recorded history that Crackpipe doesn’t believe in.

So that is a lie and there are no “beliefs” that stop me from using the bible as either a historical source, or evidence of Jesus.
:
:
Next:

“However, historians do consider – in part, if not in whole – The NT to be a source for historical information. Especially about the early Christian Church!”
—————–

Not Hector Avalos, or Richard Carrier.

Coincidentally happen to be Atheists who aren’t brainwashed to religion.

A book about supernatural lies that never happened with an agenda to lie, mislead and deceive can never be considered a reliable source of anything.

It is the equivalent of Joseph Smith and Moroni, Mohammed and Gabriel, which are both fairytales to Crackpipe and myself. Fairytales are not history.
:
:
Next:

“Nearly all historical scholars also believe there is eveidence outside the Bible. There are three solid sources and one possible.
The solid sources are Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus (who refers to Jesus twice).
The possible source is Suetonious.
——————

No, that is a lie.

The 3 sources are thought to be forgeries and also if they aren’t forgeries then they are simply basing themselves on christian hearsay and nothing else.

Suetonious has multiple flaws on why the reference is not credible, or evidence of Jesus.
:
:
Next:

“In short, historians have pretty much come to a conclusion: Jesus existed.”
—————

This is a lie also.

Many historians will only say Jesus existed because they are brainwashed to say so.

There is no evidence Jesus existed, but there are many historians who are afraid to speak out due to fear of their careers.

Christian influence and the belief in the existence in Jesus is strong and if anyone thinks that that belief itself doesn’t have influence on peoples careers then they’re crazy.

Just like religious influence has power over psychological research on brainwashing and peoples careers who try to expose it.
:
:
Next:

“Really it comes down to a matter of faith.
I have faith, based on the evidence, Jesus existed.
BB(s)J has faith, based on rejection of the evidence, Jesus didn’t.
I have faith as well that Jesus is the Son of God.
BB(s)J has faith he isn’t.”
—————

That’s a lie.

It all comes down to the fact that Crackpipe has been brainwashed and psychologically conditioned to believe a lie.

It’s that same brainwashing that causes Crackpipe to tell himself that there is evidence when there really isn’t.

I’m saying that there is no evidence of Jesus really even existing (there isn’t) and there is no evidence to say that Jesus was divine whatsoever.

I have no “faith” that there isn’t evidence of Jesus, there just really isn’t any evidence of Jesus.

I also have no “faith” Jesus wasn’t divine, I have no reason to believe Jesus was divine or anything so I have a lack of faith. I also have facts about simple reality.

Facts do not require faith for them
to be facts. Facts are FACTS because they are true and shown to be true.
:
:
Next:

“By going through the evidence with BB(s)J my attempt was to show his failures in logic, that his arguments weren’t so, and that despite his repeated claims there ISN’T evidence for Jesus outside the Bible, as scholars claim there is.
—————-

This first part actually isn’t a lie, because it IS an ATTEMPT, but Crackpipe failed completely.

There isn’t evidence for Jesus outside the bible and scholars agree that it’s nothing but hearsay, even if they aren’t forgeries, so that is a lie.
:
:
Next:

“Of course BB(s)J will say I failed.
And if I did, that’s fine. I’m not interested in being right, I’m interested in the truth.
—————-

This is definitely a lie.

Crackpipe, aswell as all christians are not looking for the truth, they’re looking for ways to deceive people and convince others so they can fuel their own delusion.
:
:
Tuesday, May 20, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/science-against-evolution.html?m=1
:
:
Next:

“One thing BB(s)J listed in his scientific proofs was evolution.

Well far be it from me to ignore a hot button topic

Evolution is a broad topic, so I have nothing specific at the moment to reply to so I just offer this link: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v18i8e.htm
——————

Saying evolution doesn’t exist is an absolute LIE.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Crackpipe needs to compare these 2:

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

against this:

http://bornagainpagan.com/texts/002-text.html
:
:
Tuesday, May 20, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/tacitus-ii-bbsj-kicks-bart-ehrman-ass.html?m=1
:
:
Next:

“As usual I will address ONLY the on topic points unless he goes so far off base that I want to point it out.

There is a lot of stuff that warrants no reply so I don’t include those. But by all means go read BB(s)J’s post and see if I missed anything.”
——————

This is a lie.

Crackpipe means that he had no defense against what I said and just simply ignored it because lying and deflecting are all Crackpipe knows how to do to “defend” his delusion.
:
:
Next:

“I will not, however, reargue my points if it isn’t needed.”
————

This is a lie.

Crackpipe says the same untrue nonsensical points over and over, while at the same time not addressing the things I bring up and if he does he simply just dismisses them and nothing else.

He doesn’t answer them and just deflects like a coward.
:
:
Next:

“If you bothered to actually read the links you provided…

However, if you want to continue to argue that Tac is just using Christian sources by all means show us YOUR evidence.”
————–

Ok well this is of course a lie about the christian sources.

The “scholar” Crackpipe referred to is a brainwashed delusional professor whose education was in religion and nothing else, so of course his OPINION was that Tacitus cited correct sources. His life also consists of attempting to convert and brainwash people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerd_Theissen

My evidence is that Tacitus isn’t saying anything that isn’t common knowledge about christianity at that time.

My other evidence is Bart Ehrman saying the same thing I do about Tacitus using common christian hearsay on page 194 in the ibook version of his book Did Jesus Exist.

Also the fact that there is no evidence of Jesus anywhere and that Paul was not evidence of Jesus either.
:
:
Next:

“Then BB(s)J just makes more irrelevant analogies…”
———–

No, not irrelevant, just my best attempts at showing someone who is both so brainwashed and stupid, something to compare things with to help them think.

Unfortunately Crackpipe refused to think, or even try.
:
:
Next:

“So I guess BB(s)J now admits that yes Christ is synonymous with Jesus and thus Jesus was named in the writing – of which before he claimed Jesus wasn’t named.”
—————-

No, that would be a lie again.

The specifics are not there and again he’s only talking about christian hearsay.

Christian hearsay and christianity are only evidence that there were brainwashed idiots that worshipped something dumb.

There are no details about Jesus’ life or anything that isn’t common knowledge that comes from christian hearsay.
:
:
Next:

“THEN changes tactics to argue the forged issue…”
—————

No, that is another lie.

I was simply implying what I had repeatedly said which was that this was evidence of nothing and common christian hearsay.

There is nothing to say otherwise.

Same as the common knowledge that Bruce Wayne is Batman to all who know the story.
:
:
Next:

“Oh, this great commentary on ancient history:
-” There was no video, audio, internet, newspapers, radio, or trustworthy media of any kind.”

No. Words. Needed. LOL!!!”
—————–

That’s a lie again.

It was an attempt on my part to show Crackpipe why things were different back then and how things were far more unprovable and unreliable.

Either way, Bart Ehrman brings up the same argument regarding photography on page 144 of Did Jesus exist.

I guess there is just nothing I can say that will make Crackpipe see why things weren’t reliable.

I wonder if it was this hard for his parents to explain sex to him. Doubtful that he’s ever even had sex though to be honest. What an imbecile.
:
:
Next:

“Since all I have been doing is relaying what HISTORIANS claim we can assume that BB(s)J doesn’t think historian would have an answer to these questions either.!”
—————

Which historians? Liar.

Ehrman who says Tacitus was just hearsay even if it isn’t a forgery?

A brainwashed christian?

Richard Carrier?

Hector Avalos?

Robert Price?
:
:
Next:

“I’m married. That means in my life I only have ONE person I need to concern myself with how they feel and think about me.”
—————

Definite lie.

Crackpipe is far too much of an idiot and a loser to be married to anyone and is either on disability, welfare, or unemployment benefit and living with his parents.
:
:
Next:

“So let’s see what BB(s)J does:

” Does Bart tell us what Roman sources that Tacitus used that wasn’t simple common knowledge? No.
– Did Tacitus say that he knew Jesus, saw him crucified and come back from the dead? No.
– Does Tacitus give us any evidence saying he was a witness to anything such as a “miracle” or anything saying he believed Jesus existed and not just repeating what people he thought were idiots believed? No.
– Does Tacitus simply repeat common knowledge that everyone knew at the time and imply that he thought christians were morons? YES!”
.
In other words, BB(s)J is saying Bart’s wrong.

Fair enough but Bart IS an actual history scholar.
BB(s)J is not.”
——————

Well Bart clearly says in his book “Did Jesus Exist” that Tacitus was only using christian hearsay. Again page 194.

Please do look.
:
:
Next:

“And that’s about all that was new, relevant, or fun to read.”
————

That’s a lie. Crackpipe simply just ignored all the parts that I tore him
a new one, but he loves to play pretend.

He also thinks that ignoring things wins arguments. It doesn’t. It does however make him look bad.
:
:
Next:

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/josephus.html?m=1

“If Josephus DID write about Jesus, then he believed Jesus existed. Which is why we are discussing the passage.”
————–

If he did write about Jesus then he was just writing about common christian hearsay and nothing else.

So that is another lie.
:
:
Next:

“Of course though, we know that BB(s)J believes it impossible for any facts in history to get passed along…(especially when Jesus is involved!)”
——————

No that’s a lie.

I know for a fact that there is no evidence or FACTS that exist that are evidence of Jesus.

This would mean that Jesus was such an unimportant nobody whose entire history were made up and exaggerated and was no different than Charles Manson, or David Koresh.

Then there’s the other possibility that he didn’t exist and Richard Carrier and Robert Price are right on the money with what they say.
:
:
Next:

“For what purpose would citing Josephus is this case be useful to them?
Even WITH the Christian addition, Josephus’ writing is of little value to the early Church fathers. It adds nothing of value to what they already believed about Jesus. Since it was clear and known that Josephus didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.”
—————

This is a lie. The church is desperate enough to use anything, or any tactic.

If they can forge half the new testament and insert forgeries into the other half, as well as lie about history, science and even try to pass off multiple apocrypha as real, then this demonstrates that they will do anything.

If they can deny science, history and reality and brainwash innocent kids, then there really isn’t any limit to any particular tactic the church might use to deceive and mislead.
:
:
Next:

“To BB(s)J this adds up to:
“e) Christianity’s greatest piece of evidence of Jesus is actually christianity’s greatest evidence how it is nothing but, fraud, lying, deception and brainwashing.”

Eh…sure! IF you hang with the scholarship of the 1900’s, which must be far superior than today’s!
————-

No, that is a lie.

The forgeries are confirmed. Maybe not all, but some.

The fact that even if none of Josephus writings were forgeries that Josephus would be saying nothing but christian hearsay (like Bart Ehrman says in his book Evidence of Jesus page 231-233).

There is no evidence that says otherwise.
:
:
Next:

“What it boils down to is this: we saw BB(s)J had only two core arguments: 1) date (as always) and 2) forgery.

1) as we know, but BB(s)J has trouble with it, is not a great argument. (especially when you have little else)
2) we see is weak and just grasping at straws and is only convincing to those who already believe Josephus
Is: “STILL DEFINITELY NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING! LIKE REALLY REALLY DEFINITELY NOT!

LIKE REALLY!
—————

More lies.

You see #1 (the year) isn’t even an argument because since it’s just hearsay anyway and based on no evidence whatsoever, it really doesn’t even exist as an argument in the first place.

As for #2 (the forgery) is irrelevant also since it’s just hearsay regardless of if it’s forged or not. The census that there were forgeries in Josephus were overwhelming though.

Now as for my OTHER arguments, well obviously that despite it being a forgery or not, it’s still just hearsay and nothing else.

Think of it this way….

– If someone forged something on something that I wrote, saying I banged Crackpipe’s mom.

– But maybe Crackpipe had trouble telling if it was a forgery or not.

– Whether it was a forgery or not everyone at the trailerpark says that Crackpipe’s mom is a dirty whore who bangs anything and everyone.

– The part about Crackpipe’s mom being a dirty whore was common knowledge to everyone living at the trailer park.

– The fact that I’m germaphobic and wouldn’t want to get her diseases and the fact that it’s been reported she doesn’t use condoms would hint that it’s probably a forgery and I didn’t really bang her.

– Again though, the fact that Crackpipe’s mom being a smelly whore who bangs anything and everything is just common knowledge.

– If Crackpipe says that “what everyone says about his mom being a dirty whore” can’t be proven (denial) so it’s just “hearsay”, well then he just explained Josephus and the Jesus reference.
:
:
Friday, May 23, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/are-we-born-atheists.html?m=1
:
:
Next:

“More than once I’ve seen the argument that we are all born atheists.
But is this true?
Atheism, at its core and true definition, is the belief that God doesn’t exist.”
—————-

That is a lie. Atheism is the lack of a belief.

We lack the belief because there is no evidence of gods and no evidence any religion is true.

Even if an Atheist happens to say they “believe there is no God” it is an inaccurate statement because there is nothing to 100% verify that.

There is no way to prove something that does absolutely nothing and has no evidence it exists and can’t be seen, touched, or heard, or communicated with.

Just like there is no way to disprove something that does absolutely nothing and has no evidence it exists and can’t be seen, touched, or heard, or communicated with.
:
:
Next:

“But as babies, since we lack this ability does that make us atheists at birth?

No.”
—————–

This is a lie.

To be an Atheist you have to not believe in gods, or supernatural religions.

What gods, or religions do babies worship again?
:
:
Next:

“Now, as I wrote in the post where I called bullshit on atheism being just a “lack of belief”, I explained how that definition makes it meaningless – for a rock can be considered an atheist then. Or (God help us) a can of beer!”
————–

This is a lie.

The term is only applied to sentient, thinking beings (humans).

If an intelligent alien didn’t believe in gods, or religions then it would be an Atheist also.

The same with an AI life form that didn’t believe in gods or religions being based on truth.
:
:
Next:

“Atheism IS a belief.”
—————-

Lying again.

Lack of belief.
:
:
Next:

“Thus, we are not born atheist, theist, agnostic, or anything.”
————-

Another lie.

We are born Atheists and nothing else.

Religious people child indoctrinate their kids though and corrupt and infect kids with lies.
:
:
Next:

“We are born into pure neutrality.
We can’t form any belief. We truly lack the ability.
So are we born atheist?
No.”
—————

That is a lie.

We form beliefs on what is right and wrong through experience and the universal golden rule.

We also form beliefs based on influence.

We form religious beliefs through child indoctrination and brainwashing.

We ARE born Atheists.
:
:
Tuesday, May 27, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/05/bbsj-replies-yet-again.html?m=1
:
:
Next:

“As we remember, BB(s)J tried poorly, and incorrectly, to show Bart Ehrman did not believe that Paul’s letters were reliable or that Bart believes there is NO evidence for Jesus outside the Bible.
These are wrong, but BB(s)J doesn’t get it.”
————-

That is 2 lies.

“I showed how Bart didn’t find them reliable by explaining about how many forgeries there are and how 20 years later was as unreliable as the gospels were because Bart specified that 30-40 years later was not reliable.

Bart Ehrman himself says that there is no evidence of the bible outside of the bible.

If Crackpipe doesn’t believe me then he can read the article he himself sent me:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/06/07/bart-ehrman-on-did-jesus-exist-part-three/

“To most modern people, it is surprising to learn just how little evidence there is for Jesus outside the Christian sources. He is not mentioned in any Roman (or Greek, or Syriac, or… whatever – any pagan [i.e., non-Jewish, non-Christian]) source of the entire first century. Never. That strikes people as surprising. He is mentioned a couple of times within about 80 years of his life by two Roman sources (Pliny and Tacitus; I’m not sure Suetonius can be used). And he is almost certainly referred to twice in the Jewish historian Josephus, once in an entire paragraph. But that’s it for the non-Christian sources for the first hundred years after his death. It’s not much.

Yes, there is a clear distinction to be made between literary and documentary evidence. The only reason I place special evidence on the former, when talking about the historical Jesus, is that there is no documentary evidence for his existence. (For lots and lots of historical issues, documentary evidence is invaluable; but only when it exists for the issue under consideration. If any did exist for Jesus, that would, of course, be highly significant.) We do not have any birth records or land deeds, no reports of his trial (other than in literary sources), and no death warrant related to Jesus – no documents (or inscriptions) of any kind. All we have are later literary references. And so these are the sources that we have to focus on.”

Then of course Barts book “Evidence of Jesus” which says….

pg 143-144
– No historical records of Jesus

– No hard physical evidence of Jesus.

– Bart mentions 1800 years before photography was invented.

– No archeological evidence of any kind.

pg 145
Jesus couldn’t read or write and there are no writings of him.

pg 147
No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus.

pg 158
No references of Jesus from anyone who was an eyewitness.

pg 169
No eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Then talking about Paul in his book…

That’s his evidence, his OPINION that he knew some of Jesus’ brothers, but never proves to any great degree that he’s not talking about how christians refer themselves as “brothers” to each other.
:
:
Next:

“The link that Crackpipe provided contains no evidence whatsoever and just states Ehrman’s OPINION.”
It’s an interview, he’s selling the sizzle not the steak. Bart goes into the “what” evidence and “why” it is in his book. It’s called marketing…
—————–

Actually no Bart clearly says in the book…

page 15
“I hardly need to stress what I already have intimidated: the view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet. That in itself is not prove of course. Expert opinion is still at the end of the day still opinion. But why would you not want to know what the experts have to say?”

So Crackpipe is again lying.
:
:
Next:

“So then BB(s)J puts up a YouTube video that is supposed to show that Bart DOESN’T believe there is evidence outside the Bible:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HRDqTh4y46c
“- 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.”
Again, BB(s)J is wrong on Bart, right off the bat. Makes one begin to question BB(s)J’s comprehension…
Bart did NOT say “there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible.”

Bart rightly says there’s no evidence outside the Bible WITHIN the 1st century. He does believe there is evidence outside the Bible, as I have quoted him on what he says it is.
Not sure why BB(s)J fails to notice that…
—————-

Ok this is a definite lie.

Crackpipe is saying that the 3 sources of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny are supposed to be evidence of Jesus in the 2nd century.

Not only is it NOT evidence in the 2nd century but Crackpipe has done nothing but confirm everything I said.

– They are said to be forgeries.

– Even if they aren’t forgeries they are saying nothing that was commonly known christian hearsay.

– They are from biased, untrustworthy christian historians found centuries later.

Definitely not evidence of anything.
:
:
Next:

“”- 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.”

“So BB(s)J is claiming superior scholarship over Bart’s!”
————

This is a lie.

So I read Bart’s book as Crackpipe suggested and Bart clearly says in the book how some were confirmed forgeries, even if they weren’t they were nothing more than based on christian hearsay.
:
:
Next:

“”- Bart also says again that there ISN’T any evidence for Jesus outside of the bible.”
Wrong. He’s never said this. BB(s)J either doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care, but he’s wrong as we have seen.
Why BB(s)J do you keep saying this when it’s WRONG!”
—————–

Many lies from Crackpipe again.

Bart says in his book

Page 143-144
– No hard physical evidence for Jesus.

– No archaeological evidence for Jesus.

Page 145
– No writings of Jesus.

Page 169
– Not a single eyewitness account about Jesus written in his day.

Then here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/06/07/bart-ehrman-on-did-jesus-exist-part-three/

Since the 3 sources are hearsay there really is nothing.
:
:
Next:

“Again BB(s)J shows his laziness or inability to comprehend correctly what he reads and hears.
But not ONCE does Bart say there is “no evidence” for Jesus. Hasn’t happened, doesn’t happen. Not even in the video…

So let’s look at the quotes:
14 min 40 sec in- “There is no hard physical evidence, or archeological evidence of any kind for Jesus.
(Glad Bart cleared that up).”

Ah, but no quote where Bart says this isn’t really an argument against Jesus’ existence…
————-

It clearly has Bart saying that there is no evidence of Jesus.

Bart’s point about using Paul as evidence of Jesus really is all there is, but the writings of someone talking about their imaginary friend 20 years later is not evidence.
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J doesn’t like that Bart believes Jesus existed and thus must now find a reason to discredit him, rather than seeing Bart’s arguments (such as buying the book) and dealing with those.
This way, BB(s)J doesn’t have to deal with them but sticking with fallacious logic!”
———–

I bought the book and it was very helpful in backing up what I said and other things.

Showed Crackpipe to be a liar repeatedly.
:
:
Next:

“Bart doesn’t contradict himself at all, but spells out VERY plainly his point and BB(s)J still missed it. (And he was the one who originally linked it!)”
—————

That’s a lie. Bart does contradict himself and I showed how.

Bart listed why the gospels aren’t credible, or reliable but doesn’t hold Paul’s letters to the same standards.
:
:
Next:

“Bart finds Paul’s letters to be VERY credible an reliable as it pertains to Jesus’ existence.”
—————-

This is a lie.

Bart is aware of the multiple forgeries that weren’t written by Paul.

Bart is aware of the many changes scribes have made about Paul’s letters throughout the centuries.

This is not reliable, or credible.
:
:
Next:

“”> I said there is no evidence of Jesus outside of the bible for which Bart is perfectly aware of.”
This is FALSE as we have seen, though BB(s)J ignores this fact or continues to miss it!”
——————

Nope. Crackpipe continues to lie.

There is no evidence outside of the bible and the 3 sources as Bart says in his book, are just repeating christian hearsay that everyone was aware of.
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J “- Not outside of the fictional bible and fictional gospels, which contradicts itself and is historically inaccurate”
Me- We haven’t yet gone through all of them, but yes we have one source: Tacitus. Nearly all historians, save for the Jesus Myth people, find to be authentic and accurate and EVIDENCE for Jesus. For the reasons I brought up and more.”
————

Nope. That is a lie.

Even if it isn’t a forgery it’s just christian hearsay.
:
:
Next:

“Information about myself is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I never said I wouldn’t talk about it, but it’s not on topic to the evidence for Jesus.”
—————

That’s a lie. He never brings it up in the brainwashing discussion either.

Crackpipe is deflecting because he knows that he will be admitting to either being child indoctrinated, or brainwashed when older.

Which is the only way that someone would believe any nonsensical religion that makes no sense.

Which is what makes people believe all those other religions that Crackpipe doesn’t believe in and he thinks are ridiculous.
:
:
Next:

” As we recall, BB(s)J claimed that I made the argument there was more evidence for ATG…which of course wasn’t true.”
—————-

He brought up Alexander the great in the sense of using the same old argument apologists keep using.

He was implying that argument and Crackpipe knows that he was and is doing nothing but waste peoples time about this now.
:
:
Next:

“This is why Paul’s letters are so important. Paul CLAIMS that he knew 1) Peter (who followed Jesus), and 2) James – Jesus’ brother!
Peter AND James were around then! And Paul KNEW them…”
—————-

Paul’s letters claim he knew “brothers” as in how christians called each other “brothers” back then.

The gospels were written 15 years later.

Things were inserted into the gospels from some of Paul’s letters.
:
Next:

“Talking out both sides of his mouth…calls me out for not dealing with specific posts, then says he won’t suggest anything, then does suggest a topic…yet, says he doesn’t care…”
——————

That’s a lie.

Crackpipe originally said he was going to reply to a particular article and even asked me if he could.

The idiot then responds to another article and never even ended up responding to the one he was originally saying he was responding to.

I then said I didn’t care because I don’t care, but if he was going to reply then to pick one of the many brainwashed articles I’d written. Simple.
:
:
Next:

“Recap what BB(s)J said.
1) don’t have to disprove God.
2) can’t disprove God
3) irrelevant things disprove God.”
—————-

Lies again.

It should be this:

1) Can’t prove or disprove invisible, untouchable things, that have no evidence, do nothing, contradict themselves and make no sense.

2) Even if there were a god it wouldn’t be the god of any religion.

3) All religions are lies that have no evidence and make no sense.
:
:
Next:

“So let’s walk him through it: WHAT a person believes about a proposition has no bearing on the TRUTH of the proposition.
Nor does one’s JUSTIFICATION for a belief regarding the proposition effect the TRUTH of the proposition.”
—————–

This is a lie in the sense that Crackpipe is saying one thing but doing another.

Crackpipe BELIEVES christianity is true and Jesus was a real person.

He BELIEVES that Jesus is the son of God even though there is no evidence to support this.

He BELIEVES there is evidence for Jesus even though the evidence is nonexistent.

He can’t grasp that the only reason he BELIEVES things without evidence is because he has been unknowingly brainwashed.
:
:
Next:

“More logical fails from BB(s)J:
“- Every single reason Beercan has to not believe in islam, or Mohammed being a prophet, is the same reasons that muslims and every other religion has for not believing in christianity.”
ME – “Even if were true, it doesn’t mean Christianity isn’t true, but I see you don’t understand that or you wouldn’t have said it!”
—————–

This is a lie. It is Crackpipe who does not understand.

Islam makes no sense and has no evidence it is true.

Mormonism has no evidence it is true and also makes no sense.

Christianity has no evidence it is based on truth and also makes no sense.

The brainwashing does not allow Crackpipe to see the impossibility of it being true.
:
:
Next:

“”- Each religion makes absolutely no sense and goes against history and science and anything else logical.”
You would have to show this, otherwise you are just stating: I don’t understand it so it can’t be true!
Which is not a logical argument and thus: not an argument at all.”
—————-

This is a lie. I’ve shown Crackpipe many times how this makes no sense, but he never responds.

It’s Crackpipe’s job to tell us how christianity makes sense, but he won’t because he can’t.

Ring a bell?:

The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…
:
:
Next:

“Actually, a religion could make perfect “sense” to me and I still may disagree with it.”
————–

This is a lie.

No religion makes sense to Crackpipe because he was not brainwashed to them.

He never provided any examples which is no surprise.
:
:
Next:

“A religion could logically be sound in argument, but still not be true.
However, it can’t be illogical and be true…
But you would have to show this, not just state that you don’t understand it and don’t believe it to be logical.”
————–

This is a lie. Religions since they are all based on lies make no sense, especially if they’re based on superstition and fake facts 2000 years ago.
:
:
Next:

“So I’m free to pick ANY topic I want, but if I DON’T pick the two that BB(s)J offered…”
————

I have 12 brainwashing articles up right now.

Why would I have cared which one Crackpipe picked? I wouldn’t
:
:
Next:

Sunday, June 1, 2014

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/06/brainwashing.html?m=1
:
:
Next:
:
:
“BB(s)J is allowing me to chose which topic I wish.

Now, I know that I won’t pick the right one, so I’ll just pick the more interesting one (to me) to deal with: BRAINWASHING!”
—————–

No I clearly said to pick one of my brainwashing articles and that I really don’t care which.

There are 12 of them to choose from.
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J believes that the ONLY reason someone is religious is because they are brainwashed. He then believes that a “rational” person would PROVE they aren’t brainwashed. Well, a bit tough to do when someone is secure in their BELIEF that a religious person MUST BE brainwashed, thus any argument to the contrary can’t be valid.”
—————

Again, the only belief I have is humanism, which is the belief that people should be looked after and as a priority over religion.

Yes a rational person should attempt to prove they aren’t religious, it really shouldn’t be that hard.
:
:
Next:

“Can I show him I’m not brainwashed?

Not on a blog, no. But as we will see, he has the argument backward…”
—————–

This is a lie in the sense that Crackpipe could show me how he became religious in a blog post, but does not.

Was he child indoctrinated, or was he a victim when older when caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.
:
:
Next:

“However, I CAN show that his argument is illogical. Which would mean, of course, his argument is invalid. And show that he actually is the one who needs to “prove” the claim, not the opposite!”
——————-

No, Crackpipe is simply deflecting and refuses to tell us how and why he became religious, or in other words, which form of brainwashing was he brainwashed with?

Child indoctrination, or being caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.
:
:
Next:

“Thus, I don’t need to prove I’m not brainwashed, he would have to make a better, specific, argument.”
———–

No, Crackpipe needs to show me that he wasn’t child indoctrinated, or what emotionally vulnerable state he was in when he came religious.
:
:
Next:

“He claims the ONLY reason people come to a religion, a faith, is because they are brainwashed because if they weren’t brainwashed, they wouldn’t be religious.
This is circular reasoning.
Premise 1) all religious people are brainwashed.
Premise 2) if they weren’t brainwashed they wouldn’t be religious.

Conclusion: all religious people are brainwashed.
—————–

No not circular reasoning because Crackpipe has failed to prove otherwise.

This is no different than saying

Premise one) All AIDS victims are infected with AIDS

Premise two) If they weren’t infected with AIDS they wouldn’t be AIDS victims.

Conclusion: All AIDS victims are infected with AIDS.

It’s true just like religion is brainwashing.
:
:
Next:

“Okay, in short brainwashing is a theory, and there are a few theories about it.”
————

True, but not the version of “theory” that Crackpipe is implying, which is the equivalent of “just a guess”.

Also, child indoctrination and many cases are quite undeniable.
:
:
Next:

“However: “Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Sociological Associationhave found any scientific merit in such theories.[2]

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

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

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Brainwashing.html
————–

Lies again. If you look at the 2 links of the 2 associations Crackpipe gives there is no word in them about brainwashing.

Also this link that Crackpipe gives us CLAIMS to be from wikipedia but if you look at them you see that they are quite different.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Brainwashing.html

Compare:

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

They’re not even close. Complete dishonesty and completely misleading on Crackpipe’s part.
:
:
Next:

“Whoops, he actually doesn’t…not one link to a scientific paper/blog/YouTube video to follow up.

Because as we know, there really isn’t any: just anecdotal.”
—————

Crackpipe is lying in the sense.

The videos and testimonies I proved were evidence enough alone.

You’d think that obsevational experience and people telling straight out about them being brainwashed and their cult leaders knowing exactly what to do and say would be enough, but I will be sure to ask Crackpipe for scientific evidence of Jesus being the son of god should I ever deal with the Crackpipe christian again.

I will however write a follow up article about brainwashing scientific evidence.

I also will point out the bogus science from the bogus effort of the biased misleading specialist who was funded by the bogus science organization in the article.

I must say that even though dealing with Crackpipe has been painful due to him being so stupid, unfunny and obnoxious, because of Crackpipe I now have content and ideas for approximately 20 new religion destroying articles.

Great job loser.
:
:
Next:

http://news.psu.edu/story/141191/2009/11/03/research/probing-question-does-brainwashing-exist

Now this is significant. This would argue that “brainwashing” if effective at all, is to a small percentage of people.

However, as Finke says those who joined the cults/groups studied, did so willingly (as we will see).

Which isn’t brainwashing.”
——————-

This is a bogus report funded by a bogus organization with a dishonest and misleading agenda.

Roger Finke is funded by the Templeton foundation and anything they promote or fund has an agenda to deceive and mislead. This is no secret.
:
:
Next:

“Sure persuasive methods were used to make the decision more attractive, but if brainwashing works so great, such methods are unneeded.

Yet, BB(s)J wants you to believe masses of people can be and are brainwashed into large religions and aren’t aware of it…”
—————–

Nope. Not true. Complete lie.

I’ve always said that religious people have been child indoctrinated in vast amounts.

Suggesting that the other group of brainwashed people who are exploited when emotionally vulnerable, has never implied vast numbers of people.

Child indocrination is undeniable.

If Crackpipe tries to say this muslim girl isn’t child indoctrinated then he is an even bigger liar than I thought.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=WL&v=QxHBlSziBhw

– Of course I plan on not having anymore further contact with Crackpipe after I finish the “Evidence of Jesus is meaningless 2” article. He has sucked up enough of my time. He really does suck.
:
:
Next:

“But even his examples do not show this to be the case, as we will see. These are SPECIFIC cases that cannot be transposed upon masses and other beliefs.”
—————-

This is a lie.

This article of mine Crackpipe is attacking was made only specifically to show extreme undeniable cases.

I never implied that anything other than child indoctrination were for converting the masses.

I like to think that people are smarter than this when they are older.
:
:
Next:

“So, EVEN IF brainwashing is possible, under IDEAL conditions it’s short term at best. Retention seems to be an issue…”
————

This is a lie.

Also, child indoctrination is a usually a lifetime thing.

– Even if you ignore the huge number of people brainwashed for life as christians, you can’t ignore the enormous muslim population that have been brainwashed for life.

You gotta wonder what Crackpipe thinks the percentage of muslims who stayed being muslim from being child indoctrinated?

80%? 85%? 90%?

I’m gonna take just a guess and say 97%. 97% who were child indoctrinated and stayed muslim for life.
:
:
Next:

“And whatever brainwashing is, what it isn’t is forcing someone to make a choice they normally wouldn’t.”
————–

If they don’t know anything else because they are child indoctrinated then yes they would, but don’t know any different.
:
:
Next:

“Nor is it simply persuasion. That is making a certain proposition more attractive than another.

Influence is not control.”
———–

This is a lie.

It is if someone doesn’t know they were child indoctrinated and doesn’t know they were brainwashed.
:
:
Next:

“So does Christianity fit the bill?
BB(s)J believes so.

To show this, he uses small, specific instances. And we will see the stark contrasts between these examples and ones faith in their religion. As well as the fact that in two examples, pure “brainwashing” was not used.”
————–

Complete and total lie.

My examples showed people who were already brainwashed and the fact that they were brainwashed is completely obvious.

Showing that people were brainwashed was the point of the article, not HOW.

They were mostly child indoctrinated and simply already on their way to being cult material.
:
:
Next:

“Susan says, her claim, that her actions were the result of brainwashing and drugs.

Could be.

Of course her youth wasn’t idyllic. And as she admitted she was a “seeker.” Manson fit the bill. So she hung around because she liked what he was saying.

But neither video goes into the “brainwashing” details.”
————

That is lie.

They explain how Charlie did it and the mentality they were in when they were brainwashed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ynBDVvGMKjo

Manson had a gift of manipulating people and had people convinced he was Jesus. This was what the video said.

This means telling people lies and exploiting them when they are vulnerable.

Why does it mean that? Because that is always what it means. So it really isn’t that hard to figure out.
:
:
Next:

“And let’s not forget the fact Manson still has a following! There are NEW followers of his. Are they brainwashed? If so, how is he doing it from prison, and against their will?

But let’s say they were brainwashed. Can their brainwashing be transposed to Christianity in general and to the mass of believers?

No.”
——————

That is a lie.

Of course we can compare both the same way.

People who were caught in a vulnerable state and exploited, by either christianity, Manson, or whatever religion they were exposed to at the time.

If they weren’t child indoctrinated then they were caught at the right state of mind, at the right time, to that particular religion, by the right type of predator, at the right place.
:
:
Next:

“To say yes, as BB(s)J presumably would is to say that Manson COULD have done this on a much larger scale.”
—————

This is a lie.

Manson put no effort into his religion at all. He is completely happy in jail and jail to him is like a permanent vacation.

Christianity has millions of professional manipulators and liars. Like the type Crackpipe wishes he was.

Manson has himself.
:
:
Next:

“However, this couldn’t happen due to the fact that isolation and complete dependence are virtually impossible on a large scale.”
—————–

Of course it could because people simply need to be isolated mentally, emotionally, or socially.

– One or more of the three all you need to brainwash someone or to be brainwashed.
:
:
Next:

“Okay, but what’s weird is that the video BB(s)J links puts forth the argument most of the followers were MURDERED. That they DID NOT willingly choose to drink poison due to brainwashing.”
————–

This is a lie in the sense that it isn’t weird in the way that Crackpipe is implying.

Did some brainwashed people kill their own kids? Yes.

Did brainwashed people order some members to drink? Yes.

Was there only one other person who died by gunshot? Yes, Jones and a woman.

So was there brainwashing? Yes.

Would it make any difference if only 100 out of 912 were still brainwashed in the end? No. There still would have been brainwashed people. Which was the whole point.
:
:
Next:

“So background info JJ and the Peoples Temple didn’t start so much as a cult but social/racial/political advocacy group, with Communist ideals.”
————

This is a lie.

All churches and relgions are cults, just larger versions and are only called “cults” when the leader is still alive.
:
:
Next:

“ANY use of force is not brainwashing.”
—————

Total lie.

Muslims use force all the time.

They tie kids to trees until they memorize the koran.

They cane you or kill you for religious violations.

Christians generally don’t use force due to secular influence in society. Without that secular influence christianity would be a lot worse and would be the same as it were a 1000 years ago.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CWS0ePXeq24

The only reason that muslims have no secular influence is because Atheism is a death sentence in islam.
:
:
Next:

“By this account, sure doesn’t sound like brainwashed zombies willing to kill themselves.”
—————-

This is an unbelievable lie.

What part of rehearsed suicide, killing your kids and pointing guns at people to prevent them from leaving doesn’t sound like brainwashed zombies?
:
:
Next:

“However this needs to be an example of pure brainwashing for BB(s)J’s argument to hold ANY water.”
—————

No it doesn’t.

That’s pathetically dumb.
:
:
Next:

“So again we do not have a clear case of actual brainwashing. Especially for a larger group, which BB(s)J needs to establish can happen to show it IS happening…”
————-

This is a ridiculously stupid lie.

These people killed themselves, killed their children, moved to the jungle and followed a crazy person and believed an insane religion.

This is clearly brainwashing for a large group.

WTF is wrong with Crackpipe?
:
:
Next:

“But are there still believers?

At least one: http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/waco-survivor-waiting-david-koresh-resurrection-article-1.1734205#bmb=1

If even under IDEAL circumstances brainwashing is short term, how then is it that this man STILL believes?”
—————

This is a lie when saying all brainwashing is short term.

Especially if someone is saying that child indoctrination is not long term when it clearly is.

Child indoctrination is super deep and in most cases lasts a lifetime.
:
:
Next:

“It would have to be shown, undoubtedly, that all 700 plus adults were brainwashed into drinking the poison and no force/coercion can be evident.”
—————

This is a pathetic and shamefully stupid lie.

These demands are ridiculous and insane and Crackpipe’s claim is as moronic as the most moronic thing he’s ever said, which says a lot.

They were brainwashed in a multiple number of ways, child indoctrination being one of them and then being constantly filled with lies and delusion from trusting Jones and his group and needing the attachment of the group.
:
:
Next:

“But we clearly don’t have that here, even with the ideal conditions in place.
Why?
And let’s not forget that multiple forms of coercion were used, especially at the end…
So again we do not have a clear case of actual brainwashing. Especially for a larger group, which BB(s)J needs to establish can happen to show it IS happening…
————

Incredible lies from an incredibly dishonest flea brain.

We CLEARLY have a case of absolutely bonkers crazy brainwashed.

Is Crackpipe that blind, or that stupid? I say the latter.

What part of mass suicide, killing your kids and moving to the jungle to be the slave of a mad man does Crackpipe not understand?

How about this?:

“Larry Layton, who had fired a gun at several people aboard the Cessna, was originally found not guilty of attempted murder in a Guyanese court, employing the defense that he was “brainwashed”.[170] ”

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

COURT CONFIRMED BRAINWASHING!
:
:
Next:

“In addition, decades after the events at Waco if folks were truly brainwashed, the should not be any longer. His influence is no longer in play, they no longer are isolated from the outside world, not dependent upon him.

But are there still believers?

At least one: http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/waco-survivor-waiting-david-koresh-resurrection-article-1.1734205#bmb=
—————-

Unbelievable lies and unsurpassed stupidity.

Doesn’t Crackpipe see there is no difference between his religion and this branch davidian member whose waiting for his dead savior to return?

Crackpipe is brainwashed because he is most likely child indoctrinated, or was exploited by christianity while in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.
:
:
Next:

“4) People who have a cult leader who say they are Jesus.

What other reason is there that people follow these men besides brainwashing?

Um…choice?
——————–

Another lie.

They have been deceived into thinking they have no other choice.

Would Crackpipe chose to follow these people if he knew they weren’t Jesus?

They have been brainwashed to believe.
:
:
Next:

“So BB(s)J at least admits that not EVERY case of alleged brainwashing is not voluntary. Well, that would make it unnecessary. That would make it…not brainwashing…”
——————

Another lie.

Brainwashing to religion is when you are child indoctrinated, or when you are exploited when caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.

The believers in the cult leaders pretending to be jesus is exactly that. They were caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable and that state of mind was exploited.
:
:
Next:

“But from the clip what we DO see is people WILLINGLY coming to follow (or at least listen to) this “guru.” In addition, the director (and star) makes no bones about what he is doing, and doesn’t say he trying to brainwash people.

I would argue that INTENT of the person DOING the brainwashing is important – we have no intent of brainwashing here. The director stated his purpose, brainwashing wasn’t one of them.
—————-

This is a lie.

The director clearly shows that he wants to show how people are so easily to be misled by thinking people are prophets.

As in what I repeatedly say about being caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.
:
:
Next:

“We don’t even have the IDEAL conditions: isolation, dependence, etc.”
————–

This is a lie in the sense that Crackpipe is telling us that these things are necessary because biased christian doctors with an agenda to mislead have said this.

However if we go to a non-biased, non-christian, non-religious agenda who simply deals with all fields we will see this…..

” Philip Zimbardo discusses mind control as “the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes”,[29] and he suggests that any human being is susceptible to such manipulation.[30]”

Dr. Zimbardo…. non-biased and simply doing his field of work. No agenda, no reason to make things up and mislead people.

Oh let’s see what he has to say:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/pc.aspx

Well it sure sounds like serious professional opinion brainwashing exists.

Oh how about that it’s from the American Psychological association.

Isn’t that funny how Crackpipe said at the beginning of this response article of the that the APA didn’t give it brainwashing any seriousness?

Let’s see, not that far in….

Crackpipe said in his article:

Okay, in short brainwashing is a theory, and there are a few theories about it.

http://justonecan.blogspot.ca/2014/06/brainwashing.html?m=1

However: “Neither the American Psychological Association nor theAmerican Sociological Associationhave found any scientific merit in such theories.[2]”

Which I showed how the article Crackpipe presented that he quoted and referenced from was bogus.

Remember this?

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Brainwashing.html

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
:
:
Next:

“BB(s)J is equates someone erroneously believing something with brainwashing.

That is, telling someone a lie and them believing it is NOT brainwashing. Brainwashing needs to manifest the belief they otherwise wouldn’t have…

So this bit of “evidence” for brainwashing, really isn’t…”
————-

Another lie.

I repeatedly say how people can only believe their religion because they were caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable and were exploited by that particular religion for various reasons.

– Those reasons can be anything due to the persons mental state that usually results in deluding themselves to “a sign”.
:
:
Next:

“Well, none of the videos BB(s)J actually gives us any scientific evidence of this…”
————–

This is a lie of course.

The videos themselves ARE the scientific evidence.

We have people scaring children, terrifying them, filling them with lies and not allowing them to believe the truth or think for themselves.

We also have people writing childrens books full of lies and forcefeeding delusions and turning them into slaves of those lies and fears.

How is that not evidence? WTF?!
:
:
Next:

“”7) How are muslim suicide bombers who blow themselves up to please Allah and have sex with 72 virgins, not brainwashing again?”

Well, I can’t speak to what Muslim suicide bombers believe and whether or not it’s the result of brainwashing.”
—————–

That is a lie of course.

The point is that Crackpipe can’t deny that muslims killing themselves as martyrs is brainwashing and he knows this.

Crackpipe has simply done what he always does and just deflected and avoided like the pathetic coward that he is.

He has done what he always does and answered by not answering.

Crackpipe responds with the most pathetic and spineless answer imaginable…..

“But let’s ask ourselves a simple question first: is a person who simply commits suicide brainwashed?”

– Yes Crackpipe you truly do disgust me with how pathetic you are.
:
:
Next:

“In any event, we see that BB(s)J can’t fathom ANY other reason a person would believe they would please Allah – outside of being brainwashed (which we have seen is an illogical argument).
But, again, I’m not a Muslim so I can’t really speak to this. Even so, as a non-Muslim I still can think of at least TWO reasons other than brainwashing that someone would believe and do such a thing…”
—————-

Many lies here.

There is no way someone could become religious unless they are brainwashed.

It isn’t an illogical argument and Crackpipe has provided nothing but bogus research from a bogus science foundation, a ridiculous lie about circular reasoning and the repeated claim of having 2 reasons that he does not disclose.

Crackpipe has again reminded us how pathetic he truly is.
:
:
Next:

“”a) There’s no evidence for any religion being true.”

So BB(s)J believes…there’s another belief he has!”
————

Another lie.

I have no beliefs other than humanism.

There isn’t any evidence of Jesus, or any religion and Crackpipe failed miserably at showing any evidence of Jesus, or any other religion.

The point that there is no evidence of Jesus or any other religion is a FACT, not a belief.
:
:
Next:

“”d) No religion makes any sense.”

Again, because they don’t make sense to BB(s)J NONE can be true…another logical fallacy.”
—————–

This is a lie because no religion makes any sense and of course Crackpipe has not provided any reason or evidence, or explanations on how they do, which was the whole point.
:
:
Next:

“”e) Science explains how the universe works and functions and has nothing to do with any religion.”

Okay, but explaining how something works and functions doesn’t always answer HOW it was made and designed…”
———————

This is a lie in the sense that it has nothing to do with any religion.

This statement of Crackpipe’s is an argument for deism and nothing else, which simply still proves christianity to be wrong and yes, every other religion.

– Earth is 4.5 billion years old (FACT)

– The big bang created nucleosynthesis (FACT)

– Evolution is real and proven (FACT)

– Noah’s ark and the flood never happened (FACT)

– No evidence of anything supernatural
or religiously true (FACT)
:
:
Next:

“”f) Strong evidence religions are just recycled from other religions that make no sense.”

Here I would agree with certain religions. Not necessarily “recycled” but certainly dependent. Which IS an argument against them, given what is known from the “base” religion…However, this doesn’t really address the “brainwashing.” ”
——————-

Of course it does.

It means that Crackpipe is brainwashed to a recycled nonsensical lie that has been plagarized from silly stories and hijacked from other religions like Judaism.

Crackpipe only believes this complete nonsense because he has been brainwashed to do so.
:
:
Next:

“”g) Without child indoctrination and dececeptively brainwashing people religion would just disappear.”

Another illogical argument we can disregard…”
——————

This is a lie.

Crackpipe has no argument and simply thinks he can just dismiss everything, like that makes my point not true, but my point is quite true and quite real.

Again I think it quite pathetic and cowardly that Crackpipe said he was going to attack my article when all he has done is lie, deflect and dismiss everything. What an unbelievable loser.
:
:
Next:

“”h) That if religions were simply TRUE they would be obviously true and not in need of apologists LYING about everything to make people believe them.”

Another illogical argument we can disregard…”
—————–

Another lie.

The point is that because people are brainwashed they are unable to see that this makes no sense that things are not obviously true and that apologists defending and lying for their religion makes no sense.

As Richard Carrier explains:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html
:
:
Next:

“”- Saying things over and over again about there being overwhelming evidence when they know that not to be true.”

– They know that there’s no reason to believe any religion whatsoever and have to lie and say there is.”
If you are religious YOU ARE BRAINWASHED!
If you make someone else religious YOU ARE BRAINWASHING THEM!
That’s all religion is IS BRAINWASHING and nothing else!”

In the end, science is against BB(s)J on this topic, and he really only hinges this argument on his faulty logic…no surprise.”
—————-

More lies from Crackpipe.

He has used bogus science from a bogus science report from a bogus science foundation with an agenda to convert, lie and mislead.

Brainwashing is real and I’ve shown it.

Crackpipe had an entire article that he could have explained how someone could have become religious other than brainwashing and child indoctrination, when the religions are shown to be nothing but lies and there is no evidence that shows any religion to be true…… however he offered no alternative. FAIL
:
:
Next:

“In short, I am not isolated by any stretch of the imagination”
—————–

This is a lie.

Crackpipe has isolated himself from many things:

– isolated himself from reality
– isolated himself from truth
– isolated himself from the possibility that he has wasted his life in believing a lie
– isolated himself from the fact that there is no difference between his religion and all other religons that he doesn’t believe in
– isolated himself from even listening to anyone
:
:
Next:

“I have no dependence upon anyone other than myself and my wife…I have no spiritual leader that my faith is hooked to or dependent upon…”
—————

This is probably the most laughable lie said yet.

Crackpipe is dependent upon his lie being real because he is too much of a coward to accept the truth that he has wasted his life on a lie that makes no sense, has no evidence and is no different than any other ridiculous religion Crackpipe doesn’t believe in.

He is dependent upon a lie that he can’t accept himself being a complete idiot and always has been.
:
:
Next:

“NO example BB(s)J can be shown to be a part of my life, and yet I’m a believer in my faith.”
————–

That is a lie.

I showed several examples and Crackpipe chose to just ignore and dismiss them rather than deal with the truth.

He never explained how he wasn’t child indoctrinated.

He never told us any personal details on how and why he became a christian when older. This was intentional.
:
:
Next:

“How can this be from brainwashing, when my faith exists far beyond IDEAL conditions for such a thing to take place?
—————–

This is a lie.

No ideal conditions are necessary.

He was either child indoctrinated which is easily done.

There is Crackpipe being caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable when older.

If he was brainwashed he wouldn’t know he was brainwashed.

Either way he has offered no details of how and why he became christian so we cannot know.
:
:
Next:

“See the real problem with BB(s)J’s contention is that HE is the one that has the burden of proof in EVERY CASE.”
—————-

This is a lie.

Crackpipe revealed nothing about his faith for me to dissect.

I have no burdon of proof to prove because there is no evidence for Crackpipe’s religion or any other religion.

I’ve repeatedly shown how there is no evidence of Crackpipe’s religion being true and have repeatedly asked him while waiting for a response to explain how christianity makes any sense and he has refused to do so.

I have repeatedly shown how christianity is both untrue and a lie.

The burden of proof is on the believer who believes things that make no sense and have no evidence.
:
:
Next:

“That is, while he may make a broad statement and generalization – his “facts” do not support MOST cases.”
—————-

That’s another lie.

The actual experts support everything I say.

Crackpipe’s bogus science from a bogus misleading science foundation with an agenda to mislead is worthless.
:
:
Next:

“His belief is based solely on his inability to accept that someone can honestly come to believe their faith – yet this is an illogical argument, and one that can only be addressed on an individual level, and ignores evidence to the contrary.”
——————–

Multiple lies again.

– I have no belief, I have either facts, or I have a lack of belief, unless we are talking about humanism which is the following definition:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/humanism

– Since Crackpipe has not told us any other way that someone could become religious, then he has not shown my point false that the only way someone can become religious is by brainwashing.

Or child indoctrinated:

http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=habermas_and_the_problem_of_indoctrination

– Crackpipe has not explained why he then does not believe in islam and why muslims do not believe Jesus is divine.

– So in otherwords Crackpipe has not provided any argument, or evidence, he has simply deflected and ignored everything I said, so this part about “ignoring evidence” is of course another lie.
:
:
Next:

“In short, he has to show that there cannot be ANY OTHER way someone comes to a faith and belief…even his examples don’t show this – as we see in every case people willingly believing and seeking…”
——————

Lies lies lies.

Crackpipe has to show ME how it’s possible.

I can’t think of any other way and unlike Crackpipe I’ve actually tried.

My examples showed people being brainwashed, demonstrating brainwashing, child indoctrination and showing how easy it is to brainwash people.

People who are “willingly seeking” are the type of people I mentioned who are “exploited while being in a state of emotional vulnerability”.

> Or in otherwords “the certain state of mind they are in is what causes them and allows them to be in a vulnerable state in the first place.”

> Like people who are vulnerable to peer pressure and social acceptance, or a way to feel a high, are more vulnerable to doing drugs, or be the victims of a drug dealer (the first hit is always free…. ever hear that before?).
:
:
Next:

“The argument is actually in reverse – I don’t have to show BB(s)J that I’m NOT brainwashed, he has to show that I was and still am…”
—————–

This is a lie of course.

The basics are pretty clear:

– Crackpipe was either child indoctrinated, or he was brainwashed while older because he was exploited while in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.

– Crackpipe intentionally has not revealed how or why he became a christian because he knows that the truth simply works against him and exposes him.

> Complete dishonesty and extremely pathetic.
:
;
Next:

“ONLY in these broad, generalize, and illogical arguments does BB(s)J’s argument exist…”
————–

More lies.

No, my arguments exist great when not being deflected and ignored like the coward and liar that Crackpipe is.
:
:
:
:
Alrighty then, that’s it. There were many I skipped in order to save time but I’m finally finished.

Now to finish the “Evidence of Jesus is meaningless 2” article, then post these and then never look at Crackpipe’s blog, or exchange anything with Crackpipe ever again.

Truly Crackpipe is the biggest time wasting imbecile and liar I’ve ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

Advertisements