Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 2 of 27
 [ 533 posts ] 
Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.
Author Message
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

I don't think Jason knows what retirement means.
Image
Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:51 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Are we able to keep the personal insults in their packaging? They lose their value when you play with them this much.

I believe we're all capable of drafting posts without them, so let's continue with valid criticisms of his posts and videos... after all, those offer enough to ridicule as it is.

Carry on.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:34 pm
Jason101Posts: 49Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:56 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.



Dear AronRa I want to say how sorry I am for not showing you the love of Christ .I'm very sorry .I have said some very hard things about you. I'm working on a paper and loving it. It is on the resurrection of Christ . It will be posted on the Samuel Zwemer Theological Seminary website. I hope you enjoy it .I do not want to go on after the paper as I'm not happy with the format .I find it hard to trust when I have been attacked by so many atheists . I would be very happy to debate you live on a show that would do it in a fair way . So I leave you and wish you well. The videos in this link give you some idea of the scholars I enjoy .Take care yours Jay.



This next part is good also.



On your questions my thoughts : You have to look at what Christianity is - as you define Christianity then you can look at the truth claims. So your questions do not fit the definiton as to what Christianity is.



Christianity stand or falls on the Christ of history.This last video shows you how Christ is rooted in real history .That has been my big problem with you and the modern atheists .You say Christianity has no evidence.But Christianity is Christ and Christ was an historical person .That means looking at historical evidence!



As we look at the historical Christ we can debate about his claims and what His apostles and church said about him. You see the atheist scholarship on the historical Christ is a long way behind the scholarship that has been going on in the last 30 years .We are learining so much about Jesus time it is confirming the historical core of the gospels .



So my point is as we look at the time of Christ ,as we find the historical Christ we can then build from that.But the starting point has to be the historical Christ .



My paper mkaes the case for a historical Christ then goes on to look at the implications of that in relation to the resurrection of Christ . If you want to explore this in a live debate I'm happy to do so. Take care now.

Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:11 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Jason.

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for any undue rudeness from myself. However, just so you are aware, again the above post is just too many videos. A few is fine, but I like my internet browser unfrozen. To that end, I will be condensing the videos (the text is fine as is). This is not an attempt to censor you, it's a matter of convenience for those with crap computers, of which I am one.
Image
Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:26 pm
Jason101Posts: 49Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:56 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

It is ok sorry for rounding on you admin .I'm sorry for putting so many videos .They are all scholars that are in my paper .But if you have to cut some out ,then that is what you have to do ,take care from Jay.
Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:36 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

None have them have been cut, they're all still there. They're just collapsed to save page loading time.
Image
Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:39 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2749Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

If you want to link to content that will feature in your paper, please add them in the references to your paper. I will not look into those materials without context. Such behavior is considered spam.
We do not need a dally update that you are doing the paper, or boaster on how awesome it will be or how much you are enjoying it. That is not only extremely arrogant as it also makes you look like a narcissistic asshole on a massive ego trip.
When you finish the paper I will check the content featured on it under the right context, not before. If you want me to consider material, I consider it after the paper is done and not before.
And for someone who boasts about being a scholar, you are extremely unaware of how to make a paper and how to properly conduct yourself.
A thread was already locked because of this, don't force anyone to do the same here.
This does not mean that you can not post, or that you can't say things in the meanwhile, you can make points. It just means that you are not allowed to spam with unconnected content without a point ever being made, about something that doesn't yet exists.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:47 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Jason101 wrote:Dear AronRa I want to say how sorry I am for not showing you the love of Christ .I'm very sorry .I have said some very hard things about you. I'm working on a paper and loving it. It is on the resurrection of Christ .
Then you are wasting your time. Let me help you with this.

Just today, I got an email from one of the organizers of an actual debate I will have in May. This is not what you think a debate is, this will not be a dialogue, nor two people arguing with each other either. This will be advocates of two opposing positions each taking turns to present their case to an audience. That's a proper debate.

If you and I were to have a proper academic debate, then I would share with you the advice that was just given to me by the school hosting my debate:

"Long, long ago I learned that in debate one must always be beware of red-herrings, questions that may be important in themselves but do not relate directly to the question being asked in the proposition. To be sidetracked is to lose a debate. A debate should be won or lost on the question being posed and on that alone. So, if the debate is on the basis of morality, then that is the question I will address. Not the evidence for or against evolution, or on the inerrancy of the Bible, or indeed on anything else. Just the main question. I do have opinions on these matters, of course, but they would each constitute a separate debate, and each would need to be clearly defined in its own proposition."

Now Jason, the challenge you made to me was based on my 'attack' on DaniHC, wherein you posed that you were going to shut me up about whether there was evidence of Christianity. You just made a similar challenge to Dawkins, wherein you claimed to have objective evidence that Jesus is the son of God, and that he rose from the dead. In reality, there's no objective evidence that God is even real or that Jesus ever even lived once, much less twice.

When you levied this same challenge to me, my acceptance required that you meet the burden of proof. Proof is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Evidence is an alignment of facts which are positively indicative, or exclusively supportive, of only one available situation being investigated. Facts are points of data which are either not in dispute, or are indisputable in that they are objectively verifiable.

It is incumbent upon you to produce actual factual evidence indicating the existence of (1) souls, (2) deity, (3) magic, (4) the supernatural realm, and (5) any evidence to show that your favorite fables are any more accurate than any other man-made mythology. That is the question before you, and that is your challenge -to me!

Now in a dialogue, I could explain this to you, and hopefully get you to understand it. You would NOT leave that discussion to post an 'academic paper'. That would be inappropriate regardless whether we're talking about a dialogue or a debate.

Each of my prospective opponents being considered for my debate meet my minimum criteria in that they are all representative of some collective, meaning that winning against any of them would mean winning against their following too. I don't care who they select. I shouldn't get to choose my opponents, and it shouldn't matter who they chose.

You do not represent anyone. You were not nominated by any group as their champion, nor would anyone likely ever do that. Because you are unworthy of debate, and you also happen to be incapable of having a debate. That's why, when you asked for a 'dialogue' instead, (because you thought they were the same thing) I seized that opportunity in an attempt to reason with you -if possible- or analyze you when that proves to be impossible.

A live discussion will not satisfy a proper dialogue over objective evidence, because we have to be able to show that evidence. I don't want us talking over each other or interrupting each other, but I do want to be able to examine all your claims, and I should be able to show you whatever illustrations or citations you might demand of me in return. That's why I agreed to a written dialogue, not a live shouting match. I don't want you to have any excuses for why you still don't understand what we're both trying to say.

Now are we going to have a dialogue like you asked for? Or are you going to run off and chase other delusions by yourself?
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:28 am
Jason101Posts: 49Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:56 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

I have tried to be nice but you will not bend.I have made it clear about the value of the historical Christ and given you some videos of top scholars .I'm reading the works of Philo tonight as Carrier and some of your atheist scholars use him on the historical Christ . I have read many articles ,essays ect .I'm going threw early Jewish texts before Christ plus as much philosophy of science I can get my hands on .I'm sorry but your whole tone tells me you are not a person one can have real intellectual reflection with . The fact is you are not well read in these subjects and you know it. Christianity is Christ .A Christ who is not historical means it is end of the line, a Christ who is historical means we have a start . Unless we look at who Christ was in history we are not dealing with Christianity.You have no idea about what you are talking about . What do you think of Christ ?That is the question we need to look at first . My paper will look at the historical Christ then move onto the resurrection dealing with all objections from Hume ,Carrier and any scholar that objects to Christianity who needs to be noted.It will cover History ,Philosophy ,Science and many other topics .It will be full of primary sources from the ancient world and modern writers ,all in 2500 words. But I must say AronRa I tried to be nice in my last comment and I turn my back on you and move on , you are not worth my time .Take care.
Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:03 am
HamsterPosts: 83Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:54 pmLocation: wisconsin Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Well, what can one say to that ? :o :shock: :?

What has Jay done to his channel ? a few things seem missing, a comment from Jay seems to say I am banned from a video that no longer exists.


*sings* Oh waht a friend , I have in Jesus , da da dah dum dum dum dum ....
Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:32 am
Jen MartensePosts: 29Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:54 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Jason101 wrote:Christianity is Christ .A Christ who is not historical means it is end of the line

Bingo. Congratulations.
Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:11 am
Darkprophet232User avatarPosts: 226Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:42 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Jason101 wrote:I have tried to be nice…


Your definition of “nice” has nothing in common with reality. You have been both petulant and arrogant in everything you have contributed to this forum in some kind of sick gambit to goad AronRa to give you attention you have neither earned nor would use properly.

I have tried to be nice but you will not bend.


Those whom have read my previous posts know I normally do not swear, but for the sake of impact this situation warrants it: Who the FUCK are you to make demands on anyone? You have not made a single attempt to compromise or work with AronRa in this whole degrading charade (degrading to both you and those of us who have followed it). Professional scholars do not act this way, ADULTS do not act this way. I really hope my intended tone of a parent chastising someone else’s child is getting across, as that is where we stand as intellectuals. You bandy terms around like “scholarship” and “academic” though, if those concepts were to ever grace your keyboard, I reckon you would shout and cry at them for being so alien to you.

I would go over the rest of your post but it is yet another case of goalpost shifting as you are now arguing for a historical Jesus (!) instead of deific one. If you wish to prove Christianity is correct, you must prove the things AronRa has pointed out to you. Proving that there was a Jewish Rabbi who died circa 30 CE does not do this.

Lastly, based on your exorbitant amount of videos and that the best I can tell you are unemployed (at least I hope you do not have a service-related career), and that you have now taken over twelve days to submit a self-admittedly-pathetically thin and poorly researched paper, your time is absolutely worthless.

Jason, you are not worth the electrons that perished to make this post appear on the internet. Grow up, humble yourself, and get off the internet. You’re doing rational Christians a disservice. If you really feel this strongly, go do missionary/charity work in a country that needs it. I also have a feeling it will do more for your waist line than just skimping on sugar in your tea.
“The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down." -The Judge
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:18 am
WalkingFishUser avatarPosts: 36Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:24 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Jason101 wrote: who is historical means we have a start . Unless we look at who Christ was in history we are not dealing with.


Jason, it looks like the terms of the discussion I've been made clear to you over and over and over again. How you were able to read the terms and then still walk away with thinking that providing a paper about the historicity of Jesus would even be relevant to the discussion is beyond me. You have made video after video claiming that there is plenty of "objective" evidence for Jesus. You have also said that no one in this forum contains the intellectual capacity to make such criticisms. You have hijacked the word "irony" all for yourself by projecting your inadequacies on everyone you come in contact with.

I'm sure somehow you'll turn this into, "I beat AronRa" victory. I'm sure you will continue to block dissenting opinions from your YouTube comments page. If anything good could come from this exchange it should be that you need to realize that you can't or no one else has ever been able to produce the goods.

You made a YouTube career out of harassing AronRa, thunderf00t and Dprjones. Now that you've been called out and refused to act like a adult... IT'S OVER! As for writing a paper about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I can share a quote from Christopher Hitchens to explain why nobody cares:

Lazarus was raised [from the dead], never said a word about it. The daughter of Jairus was raised, didn’t say a thing about what she’d been through. And the Gospels tell us at the time of the crucifixion, all the graves in Jerusalem opened and their occupants wandered around the streets to greet—so it seems [Jesus’] resurrection was something of a banality at the time. Not all of those people clearly were divinely conceived. I’ll give you all of the miracles, and you’ll still be left exactly where you are now, holding an empty sack.

-Christopher Hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/ChristopherHitchslap
Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:41 am
DingoDaveUser avatarPosts: 41Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:59 amLocation: Australia Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

In the wake of his historic victory over noted atheist and skeptic AronRa; eminent theologian, academic, and Manchester based street preacher the Rev. Jason Burns (B.A.) humbly shares with his adoring public why he has never lost a scientific or theological debate in his entire life.

In celebration of this remarkable achievement, Rev. Burns challenges YouTube's leading two hundred skeptics to academic debates; and in an unrivalled display of courage and self-confidence, expresses his willingness to take on the aforementioned skeptics "ten at a time" for the next year regarding evolution, and the resurrection of Christ.



Fundamentalist Christians and Biblical creationists everywhere would like to express their gratitude to Rev. Burns for his tireless efforts in rooting out and defeating all opposition to ancient religious dogmas, and wish him every success in the future.
Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:09 am
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Darkprophet232 wrote:I also have a feeling it will do more for your waist line than just skimping on sugar in your tea.


You seem to have missed this.

Are you aware of the term selah?
Please familiarise yourself with it, and consider it the next time you feel someone's employment status bears any relation to a non-employment related argument, or someone's physical appearance has relevance in any discussion on this board (threads dedicated to that sort of topic notwithstanding).

Lead by example, friends.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:04 am
Jason101Posts: 49Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:56 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.



Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:50 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2749Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Jesus fucking Christ. That is quite a literal interpretation of the expression wall of text.
Jason. I DON'T CARE WHAT IS GOING TO GET FEATURED IN YOUR PAPER. WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR PAPER I WILL READ IT!
So don't even bother because I'm not going to read that shit.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:19 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:Jesus fucking Christ. That is quite a literal interpretation of the expression wall of text.
Jason. I DON'T CARE WHAT IS GOING TO GET FEATURED IN YOUR PAPER. WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR PAPER I WILL READ IT!
So don't even bother because I'm not going to read that shit.


Dude, seriously. We get it, it's frustrating, but keep it civil. Given that Prole has already told everyone to keep it cool I can only assume you missed his post for some reason, so consider this an unofficial warning.


Jason. I get you want to share your research with us, but posting wall of text citations that are going to be in your paper any is not on. We will read your paper when you produce it, not during the writing process. Again, I've condensed the text to for the sake of scrolling, but it is still viewable.

You need to stop doing this. You're adamant that you want to provide a paper, but this is not how papers are presented. On the 10th of April you can post it, and we will discuss it, including it's primary sources and citations, but not before. If you want to update us on the process, by all means do so. However this is a last request to stop posting reams of text that will only be in your paper anyway.

You're insisting this follows academic processes for paper publication, but at the moment your not following any process scholars follow.
Image
Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:42 am
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

I would like to thank the League of reason for letting me on the forum


As far as I am aware, it's an open forum for anyone to join. So as long as you don't break the very lax rules, your presence here is thanks only to yourself. But welcome anyway.

I would like to invite any atheists to come and read my paper on the 10th of April


Why only Atheists? I'm sure many people would be glad to read your paper. That aside however, I would like very much to read your paper, I have heard a lot about it.

I decline from having a debate with AronRa on this forum as I do not trust the athiests who are coming on the forum and AronRa does not seen to have the right way about him .


A debate was never offered, as far as I understand the story so far, however, that you distrust a group of people you don't know is slightly worrying. I can understand it to a degree, in that there has been some rudeness, but please remember you haven't exactly been forthcoming with kindness and sugary sweets since you got here. But I hope we can put that all behind us, Prole and Austra especially are making an effort to ensure this happens.

I would be happy to debate him live about my paper but even then I just don't want to know as this group of militant atheists seem a bit fanatical to me.


Image

Consider yourself lucky it's just a few nasty words.

My paper will cover many scholars , DR Machen jut being one.Take care now.


You too. Just as a side note, I'm looking at some of the papers you did put on this site. I've disected one already and if I'm being honest, you probably shouldn't use it in your paper, it's mainly horse shit.

If I get time, I will get it posted tomorrow.
Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:20 pm
WWW
Jen MartensePosts: 29Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:54 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

Jason101 wrote:I decline from having a debate with AronRa on this forum as I do not trust the athiests who are coming on the forum and AronRa does not seen to have the right way about him .

Then why are you bothering to post page after page of other people's words here? If you have no intention of discussing them, why should anyone bother reading the articles or watching the videos?

If you won't discuss your paper with the atheists here, why should anyone bother reading it?
Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:24 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 2 of 27
 [ 533 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests