Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

[tsarenvy]

Just to keep that comprehensive run down of events up to date...



Jay is sassing Prolescum and calling him untrustworthy for making the details of his pm exchange with him public, completely ignoring the fact that he did this in response to Jay's airing of the conversation in a YouTube video in the first place.

 

[Prolescum]

Pooks? No.

I suppose it could be a coincidence that your first post, containing a singular question, "Why do people keep getting banned here?" came just after I closed all but one of pooky's known accounts (and no others) and you live in exactly the same place...

An attention seeker on youtube? That seems curious.

I realise you're making a joke, but there is something that must be cleared up: I didn't call him an attention seeker, I said that he seems more interested in the attention than the conversation. That isn't a judgement, it's an observation.

More often than not, I say what I mean. If you put words in my mouth, I'll likely spit them back at you.

And yes he probably is, but also seems to have earned a reputation as a bit of a character compos mentis or not. I've not heard him boast of his own intellect to the extent that some accuse him.

It has been my experience that most people have accused him of ignorance of the topics he chooses to broach and general Dunning-Kruger in relation to his reservoir of knowledge, not the level of his intellect. He apparently managed to receive a degree, after all. Which, of course, he has been known to boast about.

"I'm just an old fashioned preacher" is something I've oft heard him say.

I'd disagree with that self-assessment.

I'd be interested to know what kind of Christian he is, actually. Bit hard to guess from the pool of 32,000 denominations without asking directly. Any guesses?

He has made fanciful claims about his upcoming paper, but I wonder how much of it is tongue in cheek and how much he genuinely believes he will produce a world renowned document.

My view is that none of it is tongue-in-cheek, but nor do I believe he ever intended to produce a paper. I cannot speak to the rationale behind his actions, but they certainly look to be entirely self-defeating. This is why I think it might be the social aspect rather than the philosophy that interest him.

He is an eccentric who makes highly inflammatory arguments sometimes and deservedly takes criticism, but beyond some of these ridiculous moments is a bloke who can offer some very positive things.

A smile is a positive thing. You'll have to be more precise.

Preaching (or public speaking) is not an easy thing to do well, and I haven't seen him successfully frame an argument, let alone show an inkling of the efficacy of his purported vocation. "Old fashioned" preachers direct their endeavours to the heathen unbelievers, yet his inability to sow the seeds of his faith speak volumes about the strength of his preaching. Unless he's playing a long game that somehow turns ridicule into respect.

Edit:

Jay is sassing Prolescum and calling him untrustworthy for making the details of his pm exchange with him public, completely ignoring the fact that he did this in response to Jay's airing of the conversation in a YouTube video in the first place.

Edit 2: Electric Boogaloo

Hilarious. I'm apparently banned from responding to his channel.

Classic. I love when a Christian bears false witness. For anyone interested in some recent discussions with honest Christians, go to
www(dot)theleagueofreason(dot)co(dot)uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=11401
or /viewtopic.php?f=23&t=11510

For Jason's now-deleted videos (it's entirely honest to remove the evidence, you see), go here: /viewtopic.php?p=149984#p149984

For my response go here: /viewtopic.php?p=150009#p150009

Classy.

 

[*SD*]

He seems to have gone turbo with the uploads today - perhaps because it's Easter Sunday. This should make for some interesting viewing later. I'm still waiting for the "I won you atheists" and "I won you AronRa" videos, I'm sure they will come.

Jason Burns' Record Of Achievement -

Number of debates held - 0
Number of debates won - 742

 

[Prolescum]

Does anyone bother to make transcripts? I know it's incredibly unlikely, but I much prefer to read.

 

[*SD*]

Jason has compiled a list of DEMANDS, which MUST be met (Or Else!)



This one is a real gem, a treat to watch.

 

[*SD*]

And in this one (don't worry won't be posting any more vids!) he admits he had a "breakdown" - now I'm not going to mock him for this, but it does shed a little light on his behaviour. Many have suspected for some time that Jason either had suffered, or still suffers from, some kind of mental condition. I am not qualified to make this assessment but observations thus far would indicate that this could, possibly, be the case.

 

[Hamster]

From what I can gather Jason was employed by a Baptist church as minister.

The several disturbing things about Jason are:
- an odd disconnect between his opening and closing of the videos and the content.
" Hi, I hope you are well, atheists disrespect will cause the genocide of Christians, have a nice day , be well"
He has to recognize that most of his viewers are atheists.

- the mood swings between "world class scholar" and "help they are coming for me" with the occasional declaration that no matter what evidence is shown "Jesus is still my Lord and Savior".

- the atheism / science / evolution confusion.

When I trained to be a high school teacher I had to do a short course on spotting social and mental problems so they could be referred to a counsellor. Jay exhibits almost every indicator listed except "self-harm"

 

[Engelbert]

When I trained to be a high school teacher I had to do a short course on spotting social and mental problems so they could be referred to a counsellor. Jay exhibits almost every indicator listed except "self-harm"

So what everyone wants to do is to comb through his various musings and "expose" him in a way similar to the way we might do a charlatan, critically examine his dearly held theological postulations, subject him to ridicule and hostility and expect or hope for a rational response?

He openly volunteers that he may have had a break down and you suggest that he exhibits signs of having mental issues, as do many others. Perhaps some criticism is justified as he does exhibit some signs of cogent thought, but support of some sort might be a good way to go as well, if these issues are real. Aronra has chosen to call him a cripple on more than one occasion that I can remember. Admirable indeed. Jay presses people's buttons and adverse responses are understandable, but I tend to think that he is not a bad person, but in a bit of a tricky situation doing some less than sensible things.

I will respond fully to some of these recent posts later as they are a bit longer. In the meantime, I will say that I think ukandy makes a pertinent suggestion in one of his recent posts. It would appear that he has bet the house.

 

[Jen Martense]

Jason has compiled a list of DEMANDS, which MUST be met (Or Else!)

I think he overestimates his entertainment value.

Jason, you aren't the only Christian clown on YouTube. We had something special, but it's time to move on.

 

[Hamster]

@engleburt

Facts are facts. Jason shows clear signs of manic-depressive behavior with episodes of paranoia (that is the opinion of a psychiatric nurse) If he lived near me I would fear for my safety and would try to get him committed.

Jason has put himself in the public view by posting on youtube. In the time I have watched his channel it seems people cut him a lot of slack with his personal attacks. He makes promises he then breaks, apologises and then repeats the comments so to me he is not trustworthy.

His video with the tit-pulling action to music and his cheerleader video show a lack of proper attitude toward young women. Where is the moral outrage at the immodest garb and the pelvic thrusting of underage girls ?

Should he be given free reign because he once had a breakdown ? I say no. I will make allowances but he is an adult and makes his choices of his own free will. If he is not responsible for his actions then have him committed and get him off youtube, his blogtv program and anywhere else he spews his venom.

He also admits to spending time in prison for armed robbery. Do most people make an issue of that ? no they do not. Dies he seem genuine in any apologies he makes ? no he does not, at least to me. If you are really sorry then you do not repeat the action a few days later.

Jason can be left entirely alone by simply not producing videos comparing all atheists to Hitler and Pol Pot, claiming a coming genocide of christians and not defecating on modern science (which he does not understand)

I have used Jason as a lesson to my senior students on how not to conduct discussions of science or even philosophy and in my talks to the youth groups at my church.

This wanders pretty far from the purpose of this site, so I apologise the the mods and will not comment more until Jay publishes a paper.

 

[Engelbert]

Thank you Hamster.

I would not disagree too much with your diagnosis or opinion of his general behaviour. Manic depression and instability are amongst other things (at least seemingly) displayed that I would have to agree with you upon. My post did not allude to this specifically, but I thought it could have been inferred to some extent. Are you the psychiatric nurse or is it a colleague? In either case I would tend to agree with some of the conclusions you draw about his behaviour.

However, if it is you that is the psychiatric nurse then I am at least a little concerned for your choices of proposed action. You propose that he should be committed if he isn’t responsible for his actions. Perhaps he needs to be; he doesn’t seem well at times so perhaps this needs to be conveyed sincerely and caringly by a medical professional as an option if that is your judgement. However, is it either this or leave him at the mercy of others and his own often ill judged comments and videos? You do not specify any type of constructive action besides committal or leaving him to the internet. I don’t know what your thoughts would be, yet judging by the tone of your post, it would “seemingly” be a sanctioning of some of the antagonism that he suffers, although to what degree you would agree with this, if at all, would be guessing. It is my opinion that perhaps he does need some help and constant berating, belittling and antagonism is not necessarily that. There has to be something in between, on the one hand; hostile objection that at times has constituted severe online bullying and on the other; a committal to an institution. This is the ground, however infertile and difficult to locate, that I would seek to explore.

To be clear, I do not condone a large chunk of the offensive views he spouts and there are plenty of examples he has produced of how not to engage. However, he has also had plenty of moments of reasonable and acceptable discussion. That we may disagree on issues should not prevent him from being commended on the occasions when civil discourse has taken place, whatever the views of the parties involved or spectating.

 

[Engelbert]

An attention seeker on youtube? That seems curious.

I realise you're making a joke, but there is something that must be cleared up: I didn't call him an attention seeker, I said that he seems more interested in the attention than the conversation. That isn't a judgement, it's an observation.

More often than not, I say what I mean. If you put words in my mouth, I'll likely spit them back at you.

Thank-you. Two kind opening responses from... are you a moderator? I'm not sure, but in any case, I apologise for my gross misrepresentation of your words. You alluded to the possibility that he might be more interested in attention than conversation and I offered the response that he probably is an attention seeker to some degree. A colossal confusion, but spit all you want.

"I'm just an old fashioned preacher" is something I've oft heard him say.

I'd disagree with that self-assessment.

I'd be interested to know what kind of Christian he is, actually. Bit hard to guess from the pool of 32,000 denominations without asking directly. Any guesses?

You may disagree with that self assessment, but that's a description he often uses. Jay might correct me here, so accept this only provisionally if at all, but he is an Evangelical Non-Denominational Lutheran. He bases much of his understanding on the work and teachings of Martin Luther.

He has made fanciful claims about his upcoming paper, but I wonder how much of it is tongue in cheek and how much he genuinely believes he will produce a world renowned document.

My view is that none of it is tongue-in-cheek, but nor do I believe he ever intended to produce a paper. I cannot speak to the rationale behind his actions, but they certainly look to be entirely self-defeating. This is why I think it might be the social aspect rather than the philosophy that interest him.

You are entitled to your view in this instance and I'm sure others will share it, but having watched Jay a lot, I know that exaggeration is a tool he well uses for emphasis and interest, as do many who create videos successfully on youtube. Indeed, drama and extraordinary events are staples in good soap operas as I'm sure he well knows.

He is an eccentric who makes highly inflammatory arguments sometimes and deservedly takes criticism, but beyond some of these ridiculous moments is a bloke who can offer some very positive things.

A smile is a positive thing. You'll have to be more precise.

I believe in your first response to me, you suggested that I pay more attention if I wanted to join in. Far be it from me to return the thought, but I believe only 3 or so posts ago did I offer some of these positives. He tries to teach some of the good messages of the Gospel. Outside and around these atheist based videos, he does attempt to convey some good things, however his battle with online atheism seems to have been more consuming as time has passed.

You may comment on the strength of his preaching and the results. His preaching to me is a mixture of good and bad.

 

[Engelbert]

ps. apologies for the layout of my last post. I am new here and didn't quite succeed with the layout of the quoted boxes being outside of my own responses.

 

[DingoDave]

Jason Burns shares an updated update regarding his ongoing research for his academic paper concerning the 'evidence for the resurrection of Christ'.





Unfortunately, this 'evidence' appears to have been harder to locate than first expected, because Jason now admits that he will probably be unable to meet his self-declared deadline of April 10th for it's release. :roll:

 

[Prolescum]

I realise you're making a joke, but there is something that must be cleared up: I didn't call him an attention seeker, I said that he seems more interested in the attention than the conversation. That isn't a judgement, it's an observation.

More often than not, I say what I mean. If you put words in my mouth, I'll likely spit them back at you.

Thank-you. Two kind opening responses from... are you a moderator?

After a fashion. I made it clear why my responses were "kind". You'll notice I was "kind" enough to leave your new account active.

I'm not sure, but in any case, I apologise for my gross misrepresentation of your words. You alluded to the possibility that he might be more interested in attention than conversation and I offered the response that he probably is an attention seeker to some degree. A colossal confusion, but spit all you want.

It wasn't a gross misrepresentation of my words, it was an unneccessary reinterpretation of them. That may seem trivial in this conversation, but it's better to nip it in the bud early, should you stay indefinitely.

I'd disagree with that self-assessment.

I'd be interested to know what kind of Christian he is, actually. Bit hard to guess from the pool of 32,000 denominations without asking directly. Any guesses?

You may disagree with that self assessment, but that's a description he often uses. Jay might correct me here, so accept this only provisionally if at all, but he is an Evangelical Non-Denominational Lutheran. He bases much of his understanding on the work and teachings of Martin Luther.

Well, an Evangelical calling himself "old fashioned preacher" is a bit like a Mormon calling himself a "classical Christian" to me.

My view is that none of it is tongue-in-cheek, but nor do I believe he ever intended to produce a paper. I cannot speak to the rationale behind his actions, but they certainly look to be entirely self-defeating. This is why I think it might be the social aspect rather than the philosophy that interest him.

You are entitled to your view in this instance

In all instances.

and I'm sure others will share it, but having watched Jay a lot, I know that exaggeration is a tool he well uses for emphasis and interest, as do many who create videos successfully on youtube. Indeed, drama and extraordinary events are staples in good soap operas as I'm sure he well knows.

That you choose to describe his behaviour as exaggeration says to me that your blinkers are a bit too tight in this instance. That and your lack of response to Gnug's rather definitive post. I expected you to address that post first. I won't be offended if you respond to it before getting to this one.

The argument you give above seems to absolve Jason of any and all transgressions. In other words, you seem to be defending him well beyond the point where it is defensible.

For example, in this thread there is a video where he reads out his private communications with me. Without checking to see if I was happy for it to be published.
To give full context for those following this debacle, I posted the entire conversation here in this very thread.
Yesterday he made a video calling me dishonest for doing so. After deleting the video where he reads my PMs, of course.

Is that simply exaggeration? Is he just being pulled along by extraordinary events?

Given my direct experience, and Gnug's overview of Jason's posting history here, can you please give some (actual) examples of where he is redeemable? It is readily apparent that you believe such a thing exists, so hop to it.

A smile is a positive thing. You'll have to be more precise.

I believe in your first response to me, you suggested that I pay more attention if I wanted to join in. Far be it from me to return the thought, but I believe only 3 or so posts ago did I offer some of these positives. He tries to teach some of the good messages of the Gospel. Outside and around these atheist based videos, he does attempt to convey some good things, however his battle with online atheism seems to have been more consuming as time has passed.

Well let's have a look at that then, shall we?

Point 1:

He attempts so often to offer kindness and friendship to people and I accept there are counter examples to this.

You give no evidence that he "so often" offers kindness and friendship, and you accept there are counter examples. I have yet to see anything remotely resembling kindness or friendship; on the contrary, I have seen spite, hubris, deceit, hatred and precious little else. For this to stand, put your money where your mouth is.

Point 2:

He offers a forum for people to discuss philosophy and engage in ideas.

Then why am I unable to comment on his channel? Having never posted there before, the only conclusion I can make is that he doesn't want his Christian participants to know that he is lying to them.

Point 3:

Youtube exists independently, but he brings up content that piques people's curiosity and engages them in his chosen subject matter.

I guess this is a plus, but it is negated by his hypocrisy. If his non-atheist viewers were aware of his duplicity and dishonesty, would they still choose to engage and treat him with the respect a preacher automatically receives?

Point 4:

You may counter that he has blocked commenters and I would have to acknowledge that he has, but when evaluating the extent to which he has offered freedom of expression against his censorship, I believe that the freedom would be in vast excess.

How can you give the benefit of the doubt when I was banned before commenting on his channel? We know why (because it would expose his lack of honesty), so why does this engender trust enough to assume the "vast excess" of his comparative non-censorship? As far as I can see, it is an unwarranted assumption on your part, and therefore dismissed as a positive.

Point 5:

He offers free engagement on his blogTV show.

You are able to exclude users there too. I cannot see why he would treat that forum any differently than he does YouTube.

Point 6:

Whether you agree with his ideas or not, such a forum can be a beneficial thing for all those involved.

That would be true if not for all the above.

Point 7:

Everyone learns something, even if it isn't quite what Jason is hoping for and everyone has the chance to talk about topics that he brings up.

This is just an example of weasel words that mean nothing.

Point 8:

So many videos of his go under the radar, un-noticed and un-responded to by the regulars. A video espousing the message of love in Christianity draws little or far less attention than one about the falsehood of evolution.

Why do you think this is? Is it because, although he's been made aware of his mistakes, he continues to repeat them to salve his beliefs? Is this another case of dishonesty? So much for your series of positives...

Point 9:

Videos about humility, forgiveness, love, etc. Why do they go un-noticed?

Is it possible that he doesn't practice what he preaches, and his hypocrisy is the reason many oppose him so resolutely (before getting banned from his channel)?

Because people are more interested in responding to other less defensible aspects of his beliefs.

Or what I said. There is abundant evidence that humility, forgiveness and love are as far from him as the Klingon homeworld is to Earth.

The positive messages are left on the shelf as most seek to pwn a questionable statement about evolution.

Questionable statements about evolution, equating atheists with Nazis or Stalin's Russia, lying, hypocrisy, double standards, doublethink... the list isn't as limited as you suggest, and those "positives" are easily refuted by his words and actions and are therefore suspect.

I could go on further but that's not a bad start, for someone so sneered at by many.

All you've done is give some vague and unqualified lip service.

You may comment on the strength of his preaching and the results. His preaching to me is a mixture of good and bad.

Stating that his preaching is a mixture of good and bad means sweet Fanny Adams. I have seen nothing that even simulates "good". Feel free to disbuse me of this notion.

 

[Jen Martense]

Unfortunately, this 'evidence' appears to have been harder to locate than first expected, because Jason now admits that he will probably be unable to meet his self-declared deadline of April 10th for it's release. :roll:

It seems like with 2,000 years of legwork already done for him, this should take about five minutes.

 

[ukandystreet]

Unfortunately, this 'evidence' appears to have been harder to locate than first expected, because Jason now admits that he will probably be unable to meet his self-declared deadline of April 10th for it's release. :roll:

Say it ain't so! :shock:

Seriously though, it looks like this particular cycle is drawing to the enevitable conclusion. First he banned most of the descenting voices from his channel for "being in league with Aron Ra" (myself included, despite not being a member of TLOR at the time). Next he makes a slew of short videos to push any signs of dissent below the fold and starts dropping hints that he has kicked his paper into the long grass. If he is following his normal pattern then we can expect him to tell us that he has to leave YouTube on the instructions of his friends and family and then after a brief pause issue an apology and unblock everyone.

I'm happy to be proved wrong but history isn't on Jason's side.

 

[Engelbert]

Thank-you. Two kind opening responses from... are you a moderator?

After a fashion. I made it clear why my responses were "kind". You'll notice I was "kind" enough to leave your new account active.

How gracious that you should leave the account of a new commenter active. Two wrongs don't make a right so I shan't assume that you still think I am pookylies, although I suspect this to be the case. For one with an apparent penchant for pedantry, the use of an assumption before clarifying in such a case should at least be a faux pas, so I might give you the benefit of the doubt. I am not pookylies for the record. I will reply to gnug as well, but I will leave a small response here, covering one of the issues in your post.

Trying to defend Jay is a little like trying to defend a 20 a day smoking habit. It's probably unhealthy, it's time and effort consuming and will probably end badly. However, I don't think he'll be the death of anybody and I do think he's offered some good things.

With regards to his forum, here are some things I would like you to do. He has had a largely free and open forum (with acknowledged exceptions) for many months and on several channels as well as his blogTV show. Evidence is what you call for.
Please go to his current channel 'atheismexamined' and look at the uploads. Reverse the dates they are displayed by so the oldest come first. Open and browse through the comment sections of as many as you can find. You will find open comment sections with little, censorship in the older vids and in general continuing to more recent events. You will find all manner of insults and sneers, as well as genuine well measured responses and objections. If you persist through many months of videos you will find that the threads remain largely open for anyone to say almost anything. There is censorship occasionally and he openly admits to blocking repeat offenders, sometimes it would have to be said unjustly.

This openness is common to most or all of his channels that I have seen. Please search around any other channels that he owns for more examples of this as he has many (note: the channel 'Jason Burns' is a mirror channel and not owned by Jason but by one of his detractors). He owned a channel called 'comingoutofatheism' which had a similar such policy in the comments. However, this channel has now been deleted and comprised a large portion of his videos.

There have been many instances of blocking, but there have also been several amnesties and unblocking events where all have been unblocked from his channels. This is not a thing common or even evident amongst other censoring channels on youtube (eg. nephilimfree, dr.craigvideos). His eventual blocking of certain people does usually come at the end of many weeks, if not months, of freedom to respond, criticise and usually abuse. His recent bout of blocking is clearly linked to the higher profile engagement from both Aronra and TLOR and is not quite his usual activity. Further to this he has said that people will be unblocked in the future.

I would also ask you to question any of the regular commenters on his videos if they feel he has offered freedom of expression in the comments etc. to a large extent. I'm sure you'll get a range of responses, but if they're honest in their personal evaluations, I would hope that many would concede that they have been offered an awful lot of chances to have their say in his comments over recent years, even if they have found themselves frustrated by a blocking at some point or points. Two names I can think of that have sent plenty of their fair share of criticism at Jay for many months might be Rizla and Lefayad. They have both been blocked eventually, but if you look at the months of freedom to say anything that they had and compare it to the time they have been blocked foor and consider the content of some of their comments, I think it might be fair to say that Jay has offered a lot of freedom, though as many humans do, he has limits. (please search for some of their comments in older vids).

There would be more to say regarding his comment sections, forums and attitudes towards the freedoms of these, but I will leave it there for the time being and respond to gnug. I would consider his comment sections to be one of the most open forums on youtube on such subject matters.

 

[*SD*]

I would also ask you to question any of the regular commenters on his videos if they feel he has offered freedom of expression in the comments etc. to a large extent. I'm sure you'll get a range of responses, but if they're honest in their personal evaluations, I would hope that many would concede that they have been offered an awful lot of chances to have their say in his comments over recent years, even if they have found themselves frustrated by a blocking at some point or points.

Well, I don't comment on his vids as much as I used to, I was a regular contributor to the YT comments section of Jason's videos along with Rizla etc. It didn't take too long to get banned, the first time was for perhaps being a bit rude to Jason, so I apologized and he let me back on. The 2nd time was after a call to his BlogTV "show" where I wasn't at all rude, I simply challenged his viewpoints and he didn't like it so he dropped the call and subsequently banned me from his YT channel. 3rd time, I made a sock YT account under a different name and began commenting again, in a respectful but straight and clear manner, asking more questions than making comments. I think after 3 comments I got something like "Go away you silly atheist" (I hadn't reveled or indicated that I was an atheist) and got blocked. Now I pay no attention to anything Jason says, I caught up on some of his more recent vids in the last few days, but I only commented on one I think. Don't know if I'm banned yet but I suspect I am. Don't care either.

I do think you're being a little generous to Jason in your assessment of his character and general behaviour on YT and other forums, I'm sure you have plenty of examples of his "Good Grace" but I think for each one of those I could find two of him being what I can only describe as a moron - especially if his old channel (ComingOutOfAtheism) were still open for me to dig through. I understand you might be looking to balance the disagreement around Jason's character, and that's fine, but as a long time follower of Jason (yes, for teh lulz) my view would be that he is sour more often than sweet.
Just my two penneth worth and no disrespect intended.

 

[australopithecus]

How gracious that you should leave the account of a new commenter active. Two wrongs don't make a right so I shan't assume that you still think I am pookylies, although I suspect this to be the case.

Given the IP and location match, that would be the case, yes.