Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread.

[Prolescum]

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.

The difference between my assumption (with regards to you) and your assumptions (about the "vast excess" of Jason's openness and reams of "good" works) is the preponderance of evidence. Perhaps you might want to reflect on the reason/s I might have for allowing your account, given my assumption, in the first place instead of attempting to pit your wit against mine. As enjoyable as that normally is, the issue doesn't really warrant continued emphasis; it is what it is.

Now, on topic: You've made statements about Jason that are contrary to the evidence presented in this and the other thread (Jason's own words, his actions, and his videos), and now, after having received several lengthy rebuttals to your views, offer nothing except, "I can't be arsed to back up my position, you do it; I'll just repeat myself in the meantime."

I think it's fair to say that the reason you're here is to defend Jason, so I'd suggest getting on with it. Show, don't tell.

Feel free to address the reasons behind my own inability to comment on Jason's channel. After you respond to Gnug's post, of course.

 

[Gnug215]

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.

Understandable, but to be honest, it's becoming a problem, for me at least. I'm having a hard time making sense of the posts you make where you use quotes.

This is where I'd offer a quick guide to good quotation-function use, but I'm ill, head full of snot, and I can't quite overcome the task right now. Also, I suck at using them myself, and everyone else is way better.

So this is where I hope someone else will step in and help us.

 

[Prolescum]

How to use BBCode on this forum: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

Quotes are two deep, no more, lest we end up with quote pyramids.

If Engelbert doesn't mind, we can fix his last two posts.

 

[Engelbert]

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.

I find this to be extraordinary.

My knowledge of ip addresses is poor, so perhaps you can enlighten me. I'm sure that different computers are supposed to have different ip addresses.
If not then I'm sure this question betrays my own ignorance on the matter. Are ip addresses differentiated by service providers, by regions, by cities, by countries, by counties, by towns, by roads, by continents, by hemispheres, or perhaps by time zones? I really don't know exactly, but don't they work a little like post codes?

If so perhaps a re-examination of the addresses might reveal a different twist to this mystery. I may have the lead piping, but I'm not in the kitchen.

 

[Engelbert]

How to use BBCode on this forum: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

Quotes are two deep, no more, lest we end up with quote pyramids.

If Engelbert doesn't mind, we can fix his last two posts.

I've got the hang of short simple ones, but longer ones responding to different statements and questions in sequence have failed to come off for me so far. I don't mind if you want to edit my posts so the quoted boxes are appropriately used.

 

[Prolescum]

Best thing to do is delete only the third layer of quotes, but I'll look into an alternative.

<i>
</i>[quote="Prolescum"]Something
      [quote="Engelbert"]Something else
<!-- this one -->[quote="Prolescum"]Another thing[/quote]<!-- to here -->
      [/quote]
[/quote]

IP addresses are allocated in batches to countries and then organisations, I believe. You are allocated one which may change when you switch off your router, your supplier updates their network etc. Your computer's IP address (beginning with 192.168) is not related to your router's IP address.

/off topic

 

[australopithecus]

If so perhaps a re-examination of the addresses might reveal a different twist to this mystery.

It's been re-examined at least 5 times by myself. No twist.

 

[Jebez42]

[showmore=Off Topic - ip address allocation]

IP addresses are allocated in batches to countries and then organisations, I believe. You are allocated one which may change when you switch off your router, your supplier updates their network etc. Your computer's IP address (beginning with 192.168) is not related to your router's IP address.

/off topic

Allocation of ip addresses are in sequential ranges by region. Regions are not necessarily divided by continent, government boundaries, or organizations; they are mostly geographical. Anybody (government, organization, or individual) that qualify my obtain an ip address or range of them. The allocation does work similar to the postal or telephone numbering distribution systems, but not exactly. I will not go into detail as it would be way off topic. But slightly less off topic and to elaborate on what you have already stated...

An ISP are allocated a range of ip addresses based on their region. In a typical home consumer scenario, from this range, the consumer are dynamically assigned one unique ip address to their router's internal network interface (consumer side) each time the router connects or it's allocation time limit has expired. This ip address can change from time to time, but the range will be sequential and tiny.

All network devices on the consumer side of this router are typically assigned, by their router, an ip address that is hidden from the internet (usually beginning with these numbers: 10 or 192.168 or 172.[16-31]). Even if the consumer is savvy enough to use "routable" ip addresses, the router must use (via nat or proxy) the ISP assigned address in order to communicate with the internet. In any case, the internet side will see only the ISP assigned address.

Home consumer ip address ranges are typically shared between a small number of their ISP's customers within a small geographical area from a small subset of that ISP's allocated range.

There are other scenarios, but the above is very typical.

Hope this is helpful and not out of line - couldn't resist boasting sharing :ugeek:[/showmore]

 

[DingoDave]

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

Towards the end of his latest update video (at around 7:30), Jason states that he is "confident that the Christian faith is true", and that he is "confident that the evidence is there" for the resurrection of the Biblical Jesus. However, judging by his tone of voice and general demeaner, it is evident that even Jason is having a hard time believing his own rhetoric.

I suspect that having challenged himself to take a long hard look at the evidence supporting the Biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection, Jason has reluctantly come to the realisation that the 'evidence' is in fact far weaker than he has so far allowed himself to admit.

Jason's latest attempts at projecting confidence in the claims he makes, reminds me of the feeble gurglings of a drowning man as he sinks beneath the waves for the final time.

 

[DingoDave]

Seriously though, it looks like this particular cycle is drawing to the enevitable conclusion . . . 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.

Jason now appears to be displaying cycles within cycles.

He recently made a video thanking all his subscribers for achieving the milestone of 200 subscriptions to his AtheismExamined YouTube channel.
Within a matter of hours he had deleted the video, and a couple of days later decided to BAN the vast majority of those same subscribers from his channel.

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

 

[Engelbert]

To Gnug.


Thanks for your comment. Its tone did seem to be more pleasant and agreeable than the prickly jabbing I have so far received from the moderator, although its length left me deferring a reply. I am procrastinating by watching Jason’s ongoing soap opera and happy to defend him to some degree, but the length at which I would have to reply to your comment left me wondering how much time I should be prepared to spend defending someone who at times is indefensible.

I have made some efforts to support my views in one or two other comments so far. Perhaps we can agree that they would also apply to comments that you have made about Jason so I don’t have to repeat them at too much length. I have made a point about his forums being reasonably open for people to discuss and talk about the relevant issues. There are probably more open forums online that are completely unregulated, but as Christians go on youtube, I can’t think of many (if any) channels more open to comments than Jay’s. I will elaborate further on this point and attempt to substantiate it with further evidence in response to prolescum’s post as it was there that I was making it.

You have surgically dissected and disassembled several of Jay’s recent posts and videos. This is not a particularly difficult thing to do. There is all sorts of imbalanced lunacy and contradiction in his comments. If you are looking for consistency or rational discourse you will find the former to be completely lacking anywhere in Jay’s online activity and the latter to come in random unpredictable fits and starts.

We have a combination of attention seeking, genuine apologetics, lunacy, an internal battle with the difficulties of his chosen religion, the desire to be a youtuber, interest in philosophy, some humanity, probably a little mischief, some depression, a whole selection of other factors and a propensity to self destruct in Jay. We might get some sensible, pertinent and interesting philosophical discussion from him one day and a moronic self incriminating diatribe the next. It’s difficult, no impossible, to defend him from some of the things that he says, but I do have some sympathy for his position. I have also seen him say some good things and that have heard him make some persuasive and correct arguments. His appearance on this forum certainly displays the usual crazy peaks and troughs common to many of his channels and at times in greater contrast here too. Your assessment of him by the demonstrable troughs is understandable.

‘Soap opera’ is one phrase I might deem appropriate as a description of his online activities. Dissecting and responding to every word Jay utters or writes will soon become an impossible and thankless task. He makes up to 50 videos a day on occasion. The approach that you have taken, whilst appropriate for many youtubers or bloggers, will soon become an impossible one to maintain because of the sheer volume of continuous content from Jay’s end. Evaluating and responding to everything will become a full time profession.


There is plenty more to say to respond to all of your post, but I will move to the conclusion as concision in this instance might be more appropriate and fruitful than extending this response too much further.


“I admire your defense of another person, but as I think I have demonstrated in this post, his behavior is indefensible.”

His behaviour is at times indefensible yes, but not always.

“You say he's trying to do the best by his beliefs, but what does that say about his beliefs?”

It says that they are not necessarily helpful in his life and some are irreconcilable, with views that I and many others hold - but not all and neither was my contention that his beliefs are all defensible, but that he is not a bad person.

“Well, actually, in spite of not being a fan as such of Christianity, which is Jason's professed belief, I think you would agree with me when I say that I don't think Christianity is behind Jason's outrageous outbursts.”

I would not necessarily agree with you actually. Christianity is a complex construct that has a deep effect on many people and I think it certainly does play its part in much of his behaviour. Indeed I would suggest that it is the ‘basis’ of some of his behaviour. However, I would share some agreement with you here and would not assign all the blame to Christianity. There are usually levels of complexity in such cases, rather than pleasant and simplistic conclusions.

“Jason Burns is a good man, trying to do the best by his beliefs.”

If you are a good man, but your beliefs are bad, what might happen? What happens if you have invested the greatest part of your life in beliefs, of which some at least, are proving questionable or difficult? What kind of human reactions can that cause? What happens if the lifelong stability of work, mind and soul is shaken to its very core? Are these easily negotiable circumstances? Some people find their way through them with ease and aplomb. Does everybody? What about those who have committed completely and utterly, not only spiritually, but emotionally, educationally, financially, socially, morally and even to the point of making it an occupation?

 

[Engelbert]

If so perhaps a re-examination of the addresses might reveal a different twist to this mystery.

It's been re-examined at least 5 times by myself. No twist.

So, a re-examination leads you to conclude that I am still pookylies? Is this the case? We should have a game of Cluedo at some point.

Prolescum suggested that this is irrelevant, but I would say that actually it isn't entirely irrelevant. You are essentially saying that I am liar. A handful of hostile opening responses and an accusation of lies to a commenter barely days old on this forum. I have no knowledge of the conversation between you and Jay and the cause of him blocking you prolescum, but I wonder if it was entirely one sided or if there was any culpability on your part. I'm sure you will assure me that it was entirely Jay's fault.

When it surfaces that I am not in fact pookylies I will remind you of this. Thanks for the intervention Jebez. I am none the wiser for all the jargon involved, but appreciated it nonetheless. Did it help my case or hinder it?

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum suggested that this is irrelevant, but I would say that actually it isn't entirely irrelevant.

You're going to have to stop doing that, friend. I didn't suggest it was irrelevant, I said "the issue doesn't really warrant continued emphasis".

There's a reason I didn't use the term irrelevant.
Our point of view has been given, as has yours. This thread is supposed to be for the discussion of Jason and his technicolour output. We have a sub-forum for issues here. I'm happy to admit a mistake if and when I'm shown to be in error. There's no point derailing this thread further with it, though.

I have no knowledge of the conversation between you and Jay and the cause of him blocking you prolescum, but I wonder if it was entirely one sided or if there was any culpability on your part. I'm sure you will assure me that it was entirely Jay's fault.

When it surfaces that I am not in fact pookylies I will remind you of this.

Funny. Spurious, but funny. It's all in this thread, sweetheart. I don't deal in duplicity.

Whether you're pooks or not, I like you.

Edit: P.S. Jebez, brilliant.

 

[*SD*]

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

Towards the end of his latest update video (at around 7:30), Jason states that he is "confident that the Christian faith is true", and that he is "confident that the evidence is there" for the resurrection of the Biblical Jesus. However, judging by his tone of voice and general demeaner, it is evident that even Jason is having a hard time believing his own rhetoric.

I suspect that having challenged himself to take a long hard look at the evidence supporting the Biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection, Jason has reluctantly come to the realisation that the 'evidence' is in fact far weaker than he has so far allowed himself to admit.

Jason's latest attempts at projecting confidence in the claims he makes, reminds me of the feeble gurglings of a drowning man as he sinks beneath the waves for the final time.

Personally, I don't think he's really considered the evidence (or lack thereof) for the resurrection at all. The reason I say this is that back when I had him as a contact on Skype (which is the same time I was contributing to his ComingOutOfAtheism channel) I talked with him at considerable length about this topic. He revealed no suggestion that any research had been done, and when questioned hung up several times (without removing me from his Skype contacts I will add). So the conversation went on some more, and when I inquired further I was eventually "unfriended" or whatever it might be called on Skype.
I haven't been keeping up with his vids today, they are far too many in number for me to bother with, but has he actually stated that he's realized that there just isn't any evidence for the resurrection? Somehow I doubt this, since Jason has never (as far as I'm aware) admitted to being mistaken on any matter on this topic, or any topic stemming from it, and from what I "know" about him, he never will. He'll just delete any "incriminating" evidence and proceed to spout the same nonsense he always spouts. And then retreat, then apologize, then make another series of 4 minute rants about how atheists are all stupid for not acknowledging the "indisputable fact" that Jesus (assuming he lived in the first place) died and arose from the dead.

 

[DingoDave]

Personally, I don't think he's really considered the evidence (or lack thereof) for the resurrection at all.

I am inclined to agree with you. I suspect that any research Jason might have previously done consisted mostly of reading arguments from Christian apologists, and very little else.

...has he actually stated that he's realized that there just isn't any evidence for the resurrection?

He hasn't explicitly admitted as much, but having watched the ending of his latest 'research video' (which I have posted on a previous page), I am left with a strong impression that he isn't nearly as convinced about his 'evidence' as he would like others to believe. The fact that Jason is still researching the topic in order to come up with something that might be even half-convincing to skeptics, speaks volumes about the nature of the 'evidence' itself.

He'll just delete any "incriminating" evidence and proceed to spout the same nonsense he always spouts. And then retreat, then apologize, then make another series of 4 minute rants about how atheists are all stupid for not acknowledging the "indisputable fact" that Jesus (assuming he lived in the first place) died and arose from the dead.

One of the reasons AronRa insisted on a written discussion, was to prevent Jason from deleting evidence and then reinventing history in order to suit his own agenda, as he is so accustomed to doing on his YouTube channels.
I am convinced that one of the main reasons for Jason's reluctance to engage with AronRa on this forum, is that he will NOT be in a position to arbitrarily rewrite history when things inevitably go pear-shaped for him.

 

[jskemp1970]

I am convinced that one of the main reasons for Jason's reluctance to engage with AronRa on this forum, is that he will NOT be in a position to arbitrarily rewrite history when things inevitably go pear-shaped for him.

...and so starts "League of Reason-gate".

Facts, recorded or not, have never been an obstacle for the Manchester Messiah.

 

[*SD*]

I am convinced that one of the main reasons for Jason's reluctance to engage with AronRa on this forum, is that he will NOT be in a position to arbitrarily rewrite history when things inevitably go pear-shaped for him.

...and so starts "League of Reason-gate".

Please tell me he hasn't actually done this! Although nothing would surprise me...

 

[AronRa]

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



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

Wait a minute, I use "dirty tactics"? What does he think he's talking about now?

I can't debate whether Jesus rose from the dead until Jason meets my challenge of prerequisite evidence that God, magic, Jesus, and transcendental souls ever existed to begin with, or that the Bible is anything more than a compilation of fables. Is that the 'dirty tactic' he's bitching about? That I expect him to substantiate his assertions?

Whoa, the Magic Sandwich is a 'sexy' show? Because we don't have enough women?!

He will monitor all the atheist websites and blogs? ALL of them? Is Jason omniscient?

"We only want people who can reason properly, and engage in proper discussion."
Damn, my irony meter just sparked and exploded with a wicked arc and raining sparks.

"These are my final words to the atheists"
....until I draw my next breath and turn my webcam on again.

 

[Vivre]

Hello League of Reason,

knowing my first post (s?) will be in aproval and doubting to be allowed to start of with a new (-comer) topic as first, I'll echo my 'Hello @all' right here - wherefore I got aware of you.

Too being around since 13.03 and getting to know the board a bit I'm pretty impressed by the generosity and patience that's been exposed

greets ~ Vivre [eotvs]

 

[Vivre]

....until I draw my next breath and turn my webcam on again.

Following yesterdays proclamation of finally having overcome his so called 'Red Period' of misventured 'silly' videos engaging atheism etc. he desired to fall-back in continuing with Lazy Atheists:Atheists Outflanked by Sye Ten Bruggencate

"I've challenged AronRa to a[n] acedemic debate. He will not have an academic debate with me, because he's a liar and dishonest and he can't face real debate, real challenge with real evidence - he can't face it. ...[paper]... he won't [have a life debate with me] because he's behind the times, he doesn't even know half the scholars that I'm gonna be quoting. ...
These people like AronRa, LiveLife and NegationofP - the charlatans - the dishonest charlatans. They are dishonest and the charlatans because I've seen them the way in the backroom-corners of youtube, how they're manipulative, how they manipulate people, how they do dishonest tactics against christian apologists. I've seen it with my own eyes... they're sneeky ...
Here's the proof of the dishonesty[:] ... I can't find one video where any atheist 've said that they've read Cornelius van Til and are able to understand ... and critic what he says ...
I win my argument ... don't you [atheists] dare bother me with your anti-intellectualism [again] ... go 'n' do your research. ... ok?"

(Transcript for Prolescum and the record ;-) )

Oh well, I had to search for that to me in-fantil sounding name and found wiki/Cornelius_Van_Til telling me that

"Van Til's innovative application of the doctrines of total depravity and the ultimate authority of God led to his reforming of the discipline of apologetics."

Urging to know what his basing on absolute depravation entails I learned that,

"as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, ..., is utterly unable to ... refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation..."

W :mrgreen: w - that's really hardcore disgusting and who on earth wants to discuss on allmighty hopelessness?
[eotvs]

p.s: I hope you had a fruitfull weekend at the 2013 Convention