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 22 of 27
 [ 533 posts ] 
Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.
Author Message
*SD*User avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

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

Academic Paper - My Final Goodbye




Jason has said Goodbye.
It's all over. We will never hear anything from him again. Ever. Because he said Goodbye on YouTube.
I'm very confident that there wont be any more videos from him on YouTube from now on. Yes, very confident. At least till Wednesday :)
However, he didn't actually say anything in this video, just played a bit of music.

Let's see what tomorrow brings...
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:44 am
WWW
CTAH19Posts: 7Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:32 am Gender: Male

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

SD_STRIKEBREAKER wrote:Jason has said Goodbye.
It's all over. We will never hear anything from him again. Ever. Because he said Goodbye on YouTube.
I'm very confident that there wont be any more videos from him on YouTube from now on. Yes, very confident. At least till Wednesday :)
However, he didn't actually say anything in this video, just played a bit of music.

Let's see what tomorrow brings...


Has anyone compared Jason's cycle of behaviour to the lunar cycle?

Of course this Earth shattering "Academic Paper" might be the final farewell but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on either it or Jason's final exit from Youtube :lol:
Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:34 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.

Engelbert wrote:Without Jesus, then Christian theology falls away a bit. Evidence for Jesus is rather compulsory for most forms of Christianity and I have provided some. Whether it proves Jesus' existence is not a necessity. Evidence for Jesus' existence is almost a necessity in Christianity and I believe that I have provided some, but perhaps not proof.


Jesus could have very well have existed, but a non-divine Jesus is as useful to the concept of Christianity as a non-existent Jesus. So evidence that he was God incarnate please.
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:35 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2748Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

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

Engelbert wrote:Without Jesus, then Christian theology falls away a bit.

Without humans, then christian theology would fall away to. Yet you wouldn't count the existence of humans as evidence for Christianity.
(Interestingly if Adam and Eve didn't existed, then Christian theology would fall away to, but that doesn't seem to stir most believers)
We expect humans to exist if Christianity is just a fabrication due to the socio-political climate of the time.
Similarly if Christianity is just a fabrication due to the socio-political climate of the time, the realization that there was a real guy on which the character of Jesus was originally based upon, it wouldn't get you any closer to saying that Christianity isn't a myth. Christianity isn't about that a rabbi named Jesus existed (which incidentally it is not even his name), but that this guy was the son of God, who died and miraculously came back to life in order to redeem people of their sins in order to get them to heaven.

Do you understand this?
Because this is the second time I have mentioned it, and your failure to understand this will just further promote miss-communication.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:46 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.

I do love it when someone spends 758596869 years arguing over definitions in order to avoid answering criticisms.

In other news, I offered to debate Jason because he was whining about people refusing to debate him. This happened:

Image
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:24 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

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

Yeah, this ALWAYS happens with Jason. "Nobody has the guts to debate me!" - "I do Jay, let's set it up" - cue a million and one excuses as to why it can't happen. I've offered to debate Jay, I even offered to travel to Manchester, at my own expense, cover all his expenses, and any other expenses. A YouTube user called Tim Boland has a production company of some sorts and he chimed in with an offer to supply, free of charge, lecterns, sound reinforcement and to record the whole thing. I have a screenshot of this conversation (felt I needed to when the inevitable "No one will debate me" happened) but I haven't figured out how to attach it here as yet.

[url][URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/823/jayl.png/]Image[/url]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url]

Ah, ok forget that, I got it to work - sort of :)
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:34 pm
WWW
Jen MartensePosts: 29Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:54 pm Gender: Cake

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

Engelbert wrote:Notable here is that without Jesus, perhaps Christianity really begins to struggle and it is my suspicion that herein lies partial motive for some Jesus mythicists. (I do not include Carrier in that, as I don't know him) But for an anti-theistic agenda, a non-existent Jesus serves as a far greater hammer with which to attack Christianity.

I think this is a fairly weak hammer, and everyone has this backwards.

If Christians prove Jesus was real, but fail to prove his divinity, the miracles and resurrection, Christianity is left with absolutely nothing. Christians might as well be worshipping David Koresh. Christianity becomes nothing but a paganized Jewish blasphemy.

On the other hand, if atheists prove there was never a human Jesus, that he was divined from scripture, what does Christianity really lose? The Gospels become allegory and Jesus becomes entirely supernatural and entirely unfalsifiable.
Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:39 pm
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

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

australopithecus wrote:I do love it when someone spends 758596869 years arguing over definitions in order to avoid answering criticisms.

In other news, I offered to debate Jason because he was whining about people refusing to debate him.


Is it worth offering him a debate where he can dictate the rules? I'm quite excited to see him pull out of a debate because he doesn't agree to the terms he himself set.
Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:55 pm
WWW
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2748Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

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

Engelbert wrote:Without Jesus, some forms of Christianity could still exist, forms who follow the teachings of Jesus or other such things yes.

How? A fictitious character is just that, fictitious. Sure there would still be people who believe in Jesus even if they admitted that Jesus didn't existed, but that would just be mentally dissonant. You can't be following the teaching of Jesus is there was no Jesus to give such teachings, and you can't sanely believe in Jesus while at the same time believe there was no Jesus, it is not only wrong, it is self defeating and admittedly so. I do recognize any Christianity who does not believe in Christ to be Christianity, at some point you got to draw the line (imagine having to bring Christian Atheists and Christians who doesn't believe in Christ but believe in Vishnu and reincarnation). Nor I recognize any form of Christianity which does mot entitle to at least some form of special divine importance.

Engelbert wrote:The existence of humans in general as evidence is oceans away from the existence of Jesus being evidence for Christianity.

Fair enough (but do you understand why?) But you wouldn't claim that the existence of Joseph Smith is evidence for Mormonism (because rightly so, mormonism is more than Joseph Smith). And that is one of the points that we are trying to get across.

Engelbert wrote:Recall that I have never said that the existence of Jesus proves all Christianity.

And nobody is expecting that to do so. However we need to acknowledge that there are 2 standards of evidence being used and what is hoped for that evidence to achieve.
There are many forms of evidence, it can happen that Y be evidence for X if Y is true while if Y is false it is no evidence for or against X, it can also happen that Z be evidence for X if Z is false while if Z is true it is not evidence for or against X.
There is also evidence that are so compelling that by itself can establish a claim with a great degree of certainty (but never absolute certainty, those things can only exist in math), and there are others that are not sufficient on its own to establish a claim but that it would be and improbable statistical fluke to be so the way it is if the claim was false (and this things do happen more often than you think).
What Aronra, and the vast major of scientific minded people, mean when they say that Y evidence for X is that Y could only be explained by shear coincidence (i.e. it would be a statistical fluke) if X were to be false. If we assume that X is false and it is not unlikely for Y to be a fluke, then Y is not evidence for X because Y is likely to be true either X is true or false (and what you observe is Y, not X).
And in this definition the existence of an Historical Jesus is not evidence for Christianity because if Christianity was false it would not be unexpected for it to exist a person on which the character of Jesus was based upon.
This is something completely different from if Y was false then X would be unlikely (notice that the relation between X and Y are reversed), in this form Y is only considered evidence if Y is false, but if you observe Y to be true then there is nothing you can say about X and therefore this is not considered evidence.

However you on the other hand are using evidence in the loosest sense, meaning that Y is related to X, this is a conflicting definition to the ones I have presented before because in this case even if the only thing you could say was that "if Y is false then X would be unlikely, and Y is true" you still count it as evidence (can we call this circumstantial evidence for the sake of this conversation?). And in this sense I would grant (and have granted) you that the "slightly above average likelihood for the existence of a real person on which the character of Jesus was originally based upon" would be evidence for Christianity. But then again if that is your criteria, then what isn't evidence (not just for Christianity, but for anything really)?

Of course the difference in not just in the form used, but also in the scope, to ignore it just would lead you slamming into another hurdle. While you seem to be more than happy with mundane Jesus, you would be hard pressed to believe that you should follow Christian dictates or even calling yourself a christian, it is rather the "mundane Jesus is also miracle Jesus" that does that, and therefore the scope that Aronra is applying is that of the miracle Jesus.

Even you if you disagree, I hope this at least makes clear to why there is a disagreement on whether or not you in fact provided any evidence and not just think that we are being stubborn to be stubborn.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:06 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2748Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

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

Engelbert wrote:
Oh, and are you ever going to address the arguments against your sources? Or are you just ignoring them because they completely undermine your argument that you have any evidence for a historic Jesus( which again, is meaningless if you can't provide evidence for a biblical Jesus) and you can keep pretending that you have provided some?


What arguments against my sources? Why is evidence for a historical Jesus meaningless? It is of significance, especially to one who I suspect might be a Jesus mythicist themselves. "(Paul and the gospels, which, hilariously for your position, Paul did not believe Jesus ever lived on Earth but in a heavenly realm)" Are you a Jesus mythicist? Who makes the case that Paul only believed in a heavenly Jesus rather than a man who existed? It is an argument of those who deny that Jesus existed. How would Paul have believed in only a heavenly Jesus if he told in his Epistles of his meet with the 'flesh and blood' or 'earthly' brother of Jesus, James. Galatians: 1:9. Whether James was the brother of Jesus or not, why would Paul mention his existence, if he didn't believe that Jesus was a real person and his brother?


I think you have missed the point, namely that the gospels are self contradictory, none of them were written in living memory of the supposed events and the author can hardly be said to objective and all that apart from demonstrable falsities, and as thus the gospels are no more a reliable source of information as the Lord of the Rings.
And even you yourself say that Paul didn't even think that Jesus even lived on Earth, how could that be used as evidence for an historical Jesus (or anything based in reality to be honest) is beyond me.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:15 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.

Frenger wrote:Is it worth offering him a debate where he can dictate the rules? I'm quite excited to see him pull out of a debate because he doesn't agree to the terms he himself set.


I would pay about £1.73 to see that, however some other brave soul will have to take up the baton. At this point I'm resigned to laughing from the sidelines as he fails.
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:28 pm
EngelbertPosts: 290Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:03 am Gender: Male

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

Darkprophet232 wrote:
Engelbert wrote:
Christian: 2 definitions (amongst others): a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ. There are various definitions of Christian. It is not limited to one who believes in the divinity of Christ. It can be simply; one who follows Christ or some of the messages of Christ.


Where are you getting this second definition from? Why are you conflating the philosophy of Jesus with the religion of Christianity. You understand there is a difference, right? And followers of the philosophy as opposed to the religion don't identify as Christian

Christians who don't believe in Christ's divinity: Christian Deists - Thomas Jefferson was a famous proponent amongst others - The Jefferson Bible.


Do you have any evidence Jefferson identified as a Christian Deist? Or is this just more conjecture? And even if he did, he wouldn't be a Christian, he would be a Deist that liked the teachings of Christ.

Jesuism or Jesusism - The following of the natural doctrine and teachings of Jesus, not the supernatural.


Uh, Jesuists don't identify as Christian, they identify as Jesuists. Are you saying they are wrong and you know better about their philosophy then they do?


Christian atheism - found in pockets around the world - sometimes individuals - sometimes congregations - sometimes secretly sometimes openly - small example link: Klaas Hendrikse - Wikipedia or BBC


Again, Christian atheists don't identify as Christians. I asked for CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS, not conjecture about definitions and mis-categorizing the philosophy of Jesus for Christianity.

What arguments against my sources?


Master_Ghost_Knight and I have both addressed your "sources."

Why is evidence for a historical Jesus meaningless? It is of significance, especially to one who I suspect might be a Jesus mythicist themselves.


Because. as Jen Martense pointed out (much better than I had):

Jen Martense wrote:If Christians prove Jesus was real, but fail to prove his divinity, the miracles and resurrection, Christianity is left with absolutely nothing. Christians might as well be worshipping David Koresh. Christianity becomes nothing but a paganized Jewish blasphemy.


Are you a Jesus mythicist?


No.

Who makes the case that Paul only believed in a heavenly Jesus rather than a man who existed?


Paul does.

Hebrews 8:4 wrote:
If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there already are priests who offer the gifts required by the law.


Paul never spoke of Jesus as a man, only in abstract terms normally reserved for gods and spirits.

It is an argument of those who deny that Jesus existed.


Are you admitting that Paul denied Jesus' existence?

How would Paul have believed in only a heavenly Jesus if he told in his Epistles of his meet with the 'flesh and blood' or 'earthly' brother of Jesus, James. Galatians: 1:9.


Gal. 1:9 wrote: As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!"


Um, I assume that was supposed to be your evidence for the above claim, but it's not. Please provide the book and verse
that supports your claim.



Pauline Epistles. Some are considered genuine, some questionable, some probably attributable to other authors or even forgeries.

You have referenced Hebrews. Hebrews is considered widely in secular scholarship to have been written by someone other than Paul.

Galatians is agreed upon, almost unanimously in secular and Christian scholarship, to have been written by Paul. If there are any historians who doubt that Paul wrote Galatians, there are very few.

My Galatians reference was in error. it should have read. Galatians: 1 : 19
Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:48 pm
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

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

australopithecus wrote:
Frenger wrote:Is it worth offering him a debate where he can dictate the rules? I'm quite excited to see him pull out of a debate because he doesn't agree to the terms he himself set.


I would pay about £1.73 to see that, however some other brave soul will have to take up the baton. At this point I'm resigned to laughing from the sidelines as he fails.


Well, I'm, not the brightest stick in the drawer, but anything for a giggle.

I'll send you my bank details :)
Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:11 pm
WWW
EngelbertPosts: 290Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:03 am Gender: Male

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

AronRa wrote:
Engelbert wrote:So what if the Gospels are contradictory? It doesn't render every detail in them to be false.
It certainly should. So should the fact that there is not one verse out of the entirety of the Bible that can be verified to be factually correct, divinely inspired, or a first-hand account. That's why I say that if 'truth' is whatever we can show to be true, then there is no truth in the Bible. None. It is entirely man-made mythology with no evidence whatsoever to support it, and no connection to reality either. The Bible is an abhorrent repugnant abomination wholly opposed to anything modern men could recognize as wisdom or morality. It is so wrong about so much so often and on so many levels that it does not warrant serious consideration by any sane person.

Was that too ambiguous? Because I want to be clear. I don't want anyone to get the impression that there is even a remote possibility that portions of the Bible might actually be worth more than the sick sadistic superstitious sado-porn of any other author of unintelligible fiction.




Spoken like a measured and respectable academic. You have my respect Aronra. More should follow your example. I will be dismissing the efforts of any historian I meet or read from this moment forth.
Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:33 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2748Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

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

@Engelbert: I think you underestimate the amount that is demonstrably false in the gospel. It's not like the authors made honest mistakes, it is just downright forgery, and how could you trust it on the word of a text that is demonstrably unreliable? (which also has all the intentions not to be so) If there is truth in it, there is no way to know by the gospels themselves, you have to find it somewhere else. You are better of reading the entrails of goats for accurate information for all the difference it makes.

Anyways, did you at least understood what I have said about the nature of evidence?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:43 pm
EngelbertPosts: 290Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:03 am Gender: Male

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

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:@Engelbert: I think you underestimate the amount that is demonstrably false in the gospel. It's not like the authors made honest mistakes, it is just downright forgery, and how could you trust it on the word of a text that is demonstrably unreliable? (which also has all the intentions not to be so) If there is truth in it, there is no way to know by the gospels themselves, you have to find it somewhere else. You are better of reading the entrails of goats for accurate information for all the difference it makes.


Some of it is forgery and embellishment - whatever else you'd like to call it. Yes. "how could you trust it on the word of a text that is demonstrably unreliable?" By respecting the work of centuries of academics, philosophers, scientists, archaeologists and intellectuals who have attempted at huge length to discern the best possible understanding of those ancient texts, that humanity today might have greater understanding; as well as attempting to investigate, understand and consider this great body of work myself.
Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:47 pm
EngelbertPosts: 290Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:03 am Gender: Male

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

AronRa wrote:
Engelbert wrote:Spoken like a measured and respectable academic. You have my respect Aronra. More should follow your example. I will be dismissing the efforts of any historian I meet or read from this moment forth.
Thank you, sir.

And should you meet any historian or academic of any stripe, or indeed anyone at all still wishing to defend the Bible as a reliable authority on anything, do please convey my challenge to them: Have them show you one verse that can be verified to be factually correct, divinely inspired, or a first-hand account. When they balk and start making back-pedaling excuses, press them to show you any actual truth in that obviously wholly fictitious and tragically savage compilation. I would bet that they couldn't conjure anything in those pages to redeem the Bible from all the amoral psychotic horror which makes up the bulk of it.

One thing is certain, no god worthy of reverence could have had involvement in the conception of that book. Before I coudl worship any god, that deity would have to disavow the Bible first.


I have met many secular and religious academics and teachers who disagree as much as anyone else over the veracity of Christianity. Historians that I have met interest me greatly and I enjoy listening to dispassionate and measured insights on matters of great cultural, philosophical, historical and societal importance such as this, however difficult they might sometimes be to hear. Both secular and religious have cause to believe that the Bible is reliable on certain things and unreliable on others. You clearly despise it, but this is not a thing that I have sought to remedy, I have simply been critical of your arrogance and denial of evidence that most who consider this matter would at least have made some acknowledgement. I continue to be critical of this. It is a stick with which to beat Christians you unashamedly use and the lack of any acceptance of my critique or even the slightest concession that I may have had a point has left me wondering how you acquired a football stadium of followers. Anti-theism is probably a greater motive than transparency.
Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:44 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

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

Just in case anyone else is even half as bored as I am, check out the comments section of Jason's last vid (the one I posted last night) - he's gone turbo and appears to be having a conversation with him self about DPR and AronRa being pussies and such.
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:01 pm
WWW
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.

SD_STRIKEBREAKER wrote:Just in case anyone else is even half as bored as I am, check out the comments section of Jason's last vid (the one I posted last night) - he's gone turbo and appears to be having a conversation with him self about DPR and AronRa being pussies and such.


I think I may have caused this hissy fit by pointing out he doesn't know how to debate with my little screenshot earlier.
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:28 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

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

australopithecus wrote:
SD_STRIKEBREAKER wrote:Just in case anyone else is even half as bored as I am, check out the comments section of Jason's last vid (the one I posted last night) - he's gone turbo and appears to be having a conversation with him self about DPR and AronRa being pussies and such.


I think I may have caused this hissy fit by pointing out he doesn't know how to debate with my little screenshot earlier.



Maybe, he probably saw mine too, he seems to forget that there's actual evidence of his weird behavior, and that it's quite easy to prove outright that he's a fibber.
Image
Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:36 pm
WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 22 of 27
 [ 533 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests