Home > coast to coast am > Hypocrite and False Scholar Jan Irvin Blinded By Shrooms

Hypocrite and False Scholar Jan Irvin Blinded By Shrooms

Post link: http://shrooms.tk

On Coast to Coast Am is an annoyingly nasal and fake historical expert on Christianity named Jan Irvin (pronounced “Yan”). This person claims that behind Judaism and Christianity is nothing more than mushrooms, forget history, forget the accomplishments of Christians and Jews, thousands of years of work, whether or not they accomplished anything of value, forget about anything specific the Bible says, forget about if any of it makes sense or is useful for anything, like telling people not to lie, murder or be angry at each other in hypocrisy or judge one another in hypocrisy, just say, “It was the mushrooms, because it mentions the color red sometimes.” He claims that there’s very little evidence that Jesus was a historical person, as in a real person, and more evidence that he was a myth. Using that logic, his claim that mushrooms are behind Judaism and Christianity is also a myth, a lie, made up, because there is only very little tenuous highly subjective evidence that mushrooms are behind these religions. An example of one of his evidences is that Santa Claus is red, and that red presents are left under a Christmas tree, and no doubt I’d guess that Rudolph’s nose is red. Jan Irvin, you are an idiot. First, since when do Mushrooms grow in the winter!!!!!!? So much your for your expertise on mushrooms! Second, RED?! How about THE BLOOD OF CHRIST?! HELLO: “CHRIST-MAS”!? Or how about HOLLY BERRIES? ROUND HOLLY BERRIES! Guess where Holly berries come from genius? THE HOLLY TREE. I imagine if he saw white spots on a red-wrapped BOX under a Christmas tree he’d think “SHROOMS!”. No: squares aren’t shrooms, and white dots can be explained away as SNOW, and red as HOLLY BERRIES. He is truly stupid and arbitrary. That would mean that he’s also stereotyping and lumping, meaning calling all Catholics Christians and all Christians Catholics, showing that he is ignorant of the distinction between the different types of Christians. It’s a hypocritical oversight too since atheists arbitrarily trump up the differences while at the same time saying that all (fundamentalist) Christians are the same. He also brought up a supposedly hidden ancient comment that Jesus was born on the same day as other deities and therefore Christ was just a myth. Besides that making no more sense then saying, “People ate apples that day therefore apples are mythical,” this Jan obviously is nothing more than a shallow researcher, because if he looked up that argument he would have found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20111104005406/http://kingdavid8.com/Letters/LetterThousand.html

This Jan was also questioned on Coast by a guest caller asking him what he thought about the Shroud of Turin, and he said that the arguments made for it are “arbitrary” and “salacious”. LOL. A guy who argues that the color red, and shapes and a spurious single comment disproves Christianity talks about arbitrary and salacious? He also claimed that many shrouds appeared in Europe and that it’s been well debunked. HUH? Since when? He also claimed with a very annoyed tone that it’s merely “arguing the arbitrary” when people bring up “all these little questions” (DAMN THOSE PESKY LITTLE QUESTION ASKERS!) and that the “onus is on them” to prove these things, and that he can’t prove a negative (wrong) and yet said they need to “study logic”. Wow, what a hypocritical evidence-hater. A caller merely asked his opinion on it and he gets angry a few minutes later. And studying logic? He didn’t even know that it’s a fallacy that you can’t disprove a negative, and yet he himself ARBITRARILY thew up false arguments against the Shroud. What a hypocrite. When another caller brought up Josephus, he claimed that some flow of Josephus’ writing was, uh, unflowed? where Jesus is mentioned, and that if you remove it (oh wouldn’t he love to remove ANCIENT text? just like that supposedly hidden comment about Jesus being born on a day of other deities? Talk about arbitrary and hypocrisy!) that it would flow again. Oh but that’s not all of the arbitrary logic of Jan: During the above statements at some point he also made this nonsensical argument against the Shroud (and it shows how arbitrary he was being), “…unless you want to study the History Channel, and it’s credentials have been damaged by all the questionable stuff they’ve been putting out over the years” OH BUT NOT COAST TO COAST AM THE VERY SHOW YOU ARE SPEAKING ON? JAN: GIORGIO TSOUKALOUS HAS BEEN A REPEAT GUEST ON COAST TO COAST AM AND ENDORSED BY GEORGE NOORY, ART BELL AND GEORGE KNAPP, all of whom are hosts of the show. They’ve also had the other “UFO experts” on Coast BEFORE they were on the History Channel. And how is it a valid argument to merely say, “Oh they had some questionable stuff on there over the years.” BUT YOU’RE SILLY CLAIMS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON SHROOMS ISN’T? SO THE HISTORY CHANNEL DOESN’T PUT OUT ANYTHING HISTORICALLY RELIABLE IN COMPARISON TO YOU!? SHUT UP!!!!!! THERE WAS AN GLOBAL WARMING SCAREMONGER ASTROLOGER FALSE PROPHET ON COAST JUST BEFORE YOU GOT ON! Can anyone give me a “WOW”!? Who in the world doesn’t know that Coast to Coast AM is a mouth for New Age babbling idiots and every arbitrary ranting parrot and ignorant out there? The History Channel is miles away from Coast to Coast AM! Though sadly the gap is closed a little by putting on Giorgio Tsoukalos, who claims that UFOs are what is behind the Bible. Now if Jan were more intelligent, he would have said, “Well UFOs look like mushroom because they are round and dome-shaped, so clearly the writers of the Bible were seeing mushrooms while high on mushrooms.” But instead he decided to get angry right away and shoot himself in the foot with an arbitrary argument. And as if YOU were more credible than Tsoukalos? TSOUKALOS IS LIGHT YEARS MORE CREDIBLE THAN YOU! At least he does come up with evidence for some of his theories, but you, asking, “Why are presents put under a Christmas tree,” think you are spurious with a stupid “proof” like that, that you should be taken seriously?! You’re either an arrogant liar or blind.

Oh but that’s not all: after giving a speech about the JFK assassination, he criticizes those who don’t think it’s a conspiracy for “not having critical judgment and not being able to see when someone is trying to deceive them.” Jan, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

I have a question for you Jan: If Christianity was based on Shamanism and mushrooms, why does Christianity, all the way back to when it was supposedly “Judaism” (which is a myth that you perpetuate), why then does it forbid magic? Second: why did you laugh when a moron caller called in saying that he WAS going to make a religion (as if he knew the future) based on shrooms and listening to Jimmy Hendrix, Pink Floyd and the Beatles, and that he wasn’t going to include doctrine because it was creepy. You laughed and said “really” in agreement, but then after the host, Rob Simone mentioned recreational drug use, contradicted your arbitrary hatred by then saying that recreational drug usage, which you implied was bad, was bad because it was devoid of religion which it had been stripped of? As for “the owness” is on us, Jan, another question: the owness is also on you to prove your claim that Christianity is based on the visions of people who hate psychedelic mushrooms, and you haven’t come up with any except for a little of your opinions which you speak of as facts.

A few minutes later, still going on about the JFK assassination still 40 minutes away from the end of the show (wow: nothing more to say about the theory of Christianity and shrooms? Big surprise!” he said concerning someone’s conspiracy theory on JFK’s murder: “I would need more proof before I would settle on anything positive about that.” But with the most subjective evidence and nonsensical evidence you’ve decided that Christianity is just babble from people high on mushrooms, and that the Shroud of Turin is just a cloth that was made by lying it on someone’s body (lol, hence why it’s been controversial and repeatedly attempted to be shown to be not miraculous for decades?! HUH?)

Another question for you Jan: how are you credible when you advise people to have false visions (hallucinations) based on drugs? Can the truth be based on lies and imaginary things? How about using “critical thinking” and “studying logic” which you advise with your mouth but refuse to do yourself when it comes to the Bible and the usefulness of having hallucinations? Write after I asked that question I’ve now heard him say to a caller, “unless you have evidence coming in through your five senses you’re arguing the arbitrary”. And you have evidence coming in through all five of your senses that the Bible is false? You can smell that the Bible is false?! Are you high on shrooms? And no, arguing something without having evidence “coming in” through all five of your senses isn’t defined as “arbitrary”. Wow: as I was typing that previous sentence Jan mentioned “logical fallacies”. What in the world does Jan know about logical fallacies? You can’t make sense when arguing against the greatest most time-tested book in the world yet speak like you have knowledge of logical fallacies? What astounding arrogance. What a blasphemer. … Wow, now he said that if you read the work of some guy, who went line by line over the evidence for the historical Jesus, and, “If we remove the logical fallacies” that we’ll know the truth, which is that Jesus wasn’t real. Wow, stupid. So it’s logical to selective take the work of one obscure man, and say, “Therefore that’s evidence Jesus wasn’t real.” You can’t present any strong evidence of your own? No you can’t, hence why you have to weasel your way out of arguing against Jesus being real. It is you who are being ARBITRARY with your logic and your “proof”.

THE OWNESS IS ON YOU, not the other way around, because hundreds of millions of people who’ve died promoting real evidence for Christ and hundreds of millions more who are living who promote the same and more outnumber your “many” fake scholars. And this man you say who went through the proof for Christ by going through it “line by line” (and Christians don’t go through the Bible line by line, or arbitrary arguments from morons like you – I’ve been through 500 of them Jan, I wrote them down, no matter how stupid and grammatically nonsensical), Jan: the entire Bible is evidence for Christ, he endorsed it all, it’s not just “the gospels” as you seem to believe. You seem to believe it’s just the gospels and a few historical references to him: NO IT’S NOT. And you really think that one many can disprove thousands of years of scholars and the hundred thousand archeologists and theologians living today? The evidence is the entire Bible and all the historical references to him outside the Bible, and the archeological evidence, and the prophecies that have come true, and the experiences of all those who have been saved by him, and the miracles that still occur today. Haven’t you ever heard of “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”? For someone to say that one many going “line by line” through the evidence and having found evidence against it all, is utterly stupid and a plain lie. You have to know you are lying, and if not, you’re extremely ignorant and argue out of ignorance, which is what you say is, “arbitrary arguing.”

And Jan: the prophecies are clear, that the Old Testament spoke of him. Only someone stupid and deluded who after CAREFULLY examining the evidence for these prophecies would deny that they are true. And why wouldn’t you believe being that you believe in magic and religion? And you refer to “many” scholars who side with you: WHO? AND WHAT IS THEIR MAIN AND/OR SECONDARY FIELD OF STUDY? Who Jan? Carl Sagan? Julia Childs? Martha Stewart? Paris Hilton? Ted Turner? Bill Gates? Donald Trump? There are more scholars in opposition to yours, real scholars of Biblical archeology, real scholars of the Shroud of Turin, real theologians, who don’t get high on drugs as a main method of learning the truth, who stay in their right mind and don’t rely on false visions and hallucinations, yet you act like because you merely say “many” that that is proof enough. The Bible says not to be filled with wine, but with the Spirit, not “mushrooms”. The “owness” is on you, you “owe” us the proof that mere mushrooms are at the core of Christianity.

May God unblind him, remove his hypocrisy from him, and save him.

More Information:

The Shroud of Turin (This site is very extensive).
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith

Advertisements
  1. January 4, 2012 at 2:56 AM

    Note from me, Knight (the owner of this blog): This reply from “Marcus” was left on my contact page. I found out before reposting it here that for some reason the comments and pingbacks were turned on on this single post out of all my others it seems. Strange. Anyways, I broke up this reply of “Marcus Aurelius” and put his rant in quotes. This is an example of the many types of idiots I have to deal with on my blog, and yet still take my time to read their ranting despite their hatred and ungratefulness, and yet, these insanos still say, “You not let anyone comment.” It’s truly sickening. If only I could post this reply to every single page so morons like this would keep silent and learn. Now here’s his reply:

    “I disagree with much of what I have read on this site,”

    And that matters because? And you didn’t say how much much is, was it just this article or half of the nearly 700 pages? Do you talk like this to everyone, being a vague pointless idiot?

    “but your articles do not allow comments,”

    1. If they don’t allow comments why are you trying to comment? 2. You must not have read much because there are many comments. Already you’ve shown yourself to be a presumptuous emotion-wielding idiot.

    “so I have no way of interacting with your ideas.”

    Dude are you on shrooms? You don’t need to be able to “reply” to “interact” with an idea, that’s not the only way. You can READ WHAT I WROTE AND STOP BELIEVING STUPIDITY AND TEACH OTHERS THE SAME IDEAS and you can have your own ideas and write them down elsewhere. Further idiot, I give my email. But you don’t pay attention carefully. Stop trolling.

    “Maybe it’s simply a practical difficulty”

    You should really look up the signs of narcissism disorder: http://narcissist.tk because you talk like one. Hopefully you’ll get the idea to stop acting like one and not push people away so fast with your ranting and awful ideas.

    “(not know how to write the code to permit comments, or whatever)”

    Who said you needed to write any code? And again: if you can’t comment stupid, why are you commenting? What a moron. All this babble and you still haven’t gotten to the point. Radio show hosts hate people like you.

    “-and I can appreciate that;”

    You can appreciate what idiot? That you can’t type code? And why did you make an ; sign? Are you insane?

    “but it would be a great improvement to the site if your articles had room for critical feedback.”

    See above stupid. Further idiot, you haven’t read most of my site obviously, lazy moron, so how would you know what would improve it? And fault-finder, why don’t you point out the good things: like that I point out how to get eternal life in one of the shortest possible ways? Is that significant confused guy? Could you comment on the other 600+ articles? No wait, don’t do that, just go away, you’re obviously crazed.

    “For instance, in your article on Jan Irvin you falsely characterized his arguments for the roots of Christianity being found in mushroom cults.”

    No moron, that’s not what I said, read it again, while not being on a hallucinogen or alcohol.

    “You wrote that his argument was, “It was the mushrooms, because [the Bible] mentions the color red sometimes.”

    That doesn’t say “cults” nor is that the only thing he said which I pointed out that he said, so why is that all you are quoting let alone misquoting?

    “You put those words in quotations, thus implying that he literally said those words.” No moron, merely putting something in quotes doesn’t mean you’re literally quoting someone. It can mean they said the equivalent. Stop thinking like a child. And that you don’t know a common thing like that that is even done in the Bible, for example by Paul, which some modern Jews, who are stupid like you, use as as excuse to disregard the Bible, shows you are not wise and don’t know how to do basic interpretation.

    “First, those are your words, not Jan Irvin’s.”

    Hey idiot: can you stop repeating yourself? That wasn’t a “first”. That’s a repeat and that’s not your first point, your first point is your little rant about how you can’t comment, and second how I can improve by allowing comments. You sound like an offended angry “nanny nanny boo boo” kid or a spammer hoping to get his website (which I blogged for you being an annoying liar) plugged on no doubt a much more popular site than yours being that you’re a ranting boring idiot.

    “If you’re going to paraphrase, make it clear that’s what you’re doing.”

    Oh, now you mention paraphrase? As if that couldn’t have possible have been what I was doing? Instead you first call it a lie which makes you the liar. People already know about paraphrases and there is no such rule that you must make it clear you are paraphrasing, especially not when I’m WRITING ON A LIVE SHOW IDIOT, ONE THAT IS BEING LISTENED TO BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, AND THAT CAN BE LISTENED TOO EASILY, OVER AND OVER. You’re stupid. Further, you’re arguing semantics and minutia now: if you suspect it’s paraphrasing or even a false statement: THEN SAY WHAT IT IS ALREADY IDIOT, STOP WASTING MY TIME AND DRAGGING EVERYTHING OUT.

    “Second, to imply that his argument can be boild down to something that simple is to commit a Straw Man fallacy.”

    Moron do you even allow for someone to have an opinion? No idiot, that’s not a straw man fallacy because as anyone could have heard at least through listening again, he said THAT PEOPLE TAKING SHROOMS SAID WHAT WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS IN THE BIBLE. Dude, you didn’t even listen to the show and despite quoting me can’t interpret a plain sentence right without making a straw man yourself! Again liar: where did I say anything about mushroom cults? In fact idiot: HE IS THE ONE WHO SAID THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS BASED ON A MUSHROOM CULT, AND HIS POINT BEING NO POINT EXCEPT THE IMPLICATION THAT IT’S NO LONGER SPIRITUAL (AS OPPOSED TO WHAT?) BECAUSE CHRISTIANS DON’T DO HALLUCINATORY DRUGS ANYMORE. THAT IS HOW STUPID ARE! YOU CAN’T EVEN QUOTE HIM RIGHT! YOU CAN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND SIMPLE POINTS LIKE THAT!

    “You may be ultimately correct in your argument against Irvin, and he be may be a son of the devil -as you claim in that article. But you do your argument a disservice by committing logical fallacies.”

    Hey moron, being that I’m saved and you’re obviously not, and being that I wrote two large books on logical fallacies, including one in which I refuted over 500 arguments against the Bible, and clearly show my skill throughout my site which you didn’t bother to read, let alone carefully, and being that you can’t understand or learn simple things, what are you babbling about logical fallacies for? Being that I wrote an article detailing all the signs of psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, what are you telling me about logical fallacies for, and when you gave no evidence for me making one, only your “No ur wrong, waaah, ur illogical.” You’re no teacher, nor a teacher’s assistant, you’re a stupid kid.

    “If you permitted comments on the articles, I’m sure many people would be happy to offer similar constructive criticisms.”

    You remind me of the idiots who call radio show hosts and complain and whine about faults without pointing out anything good and who say they can’t get a point in while they spend their minute+ time complaining and making no point. Stupid guy: look up logical fallacies and read them carefully and read what Begging the Question is. You make no points idiot, merely made claims, and lied. And that’s all that this idiot who took on the name of someone much smarter than him I’m sure “Marcus Aurelius”, said. Any further comment from you will be ignored and no posts will be allowed from you. God bless you and may you stop being an evil moron. Look up on my site, see those tabs? And you can find out how to get saved without having to know code you can interact with God’s idea of salvation by reading it and getting saved. Can you figure out which tab I’m talking about crazy lying complainer guy? Good riddance.

    Update (a few minutes later): I see you have a Canadian email. I hope you’re not very high on weed right now. It’s rude to comment on a serious and professional journal while very high, Canadian. I hope it’s the non-hallucinogenic kind of weed at least, Canadian.

    Update (a few minutes later): This moron READ IN UNDER FOUR MINUTES this ONE PAGE. What a sicko. Yet this lazy turd thinks that based on a 3 minute and 52 second careless read that he’s got some constructive criticism and knows that I don’t allow comments anywhere? Oh and one more thing idiot: What rule says I have to allow or should allow comments on my blog? Should the BBC allow comments on their journal because you tell them to, or because you think it’s a good idea? No moron: the reason many people don’t allow comments is because they don’t want to deal with turd brains like you, who waste precious time and money, who don’t listen and rant lies and flame bait people into endless arguments and corrupt good character Mr. “You Mischaracterized Jan Who Says Drug-takers Can Also Make Things as Good as the Bible” And where after 2000 years are these other “just as good” Bibles already Jan and Marcus?) You are a careless, self-centered, arrogant hypocritical idiot, who like Jan, hears about “logical fallacies” and in your sick hatred thinks that merely because you read that and heard a little about it are suddenly an expert and wise teacher who can repeat back what you learned as the teacher of the one you heard it from. You are a son of the devil “Marcus”, just like Jan. You are a demented and evil accuser. Go live in the desert in some place where you won’t be able to tempt anyone to sin anymore. Wow, what an idiot, I see this moron left this rant on the Contact page rather than on the article on which he’s talking. What an idiot! So he sees my email and write a comment while complaining about not being able to comment and respond to me?! UGH! Hmmm. I know, I’ll leave his comment here and my replies for everyone to see, including the other evil morons who need the same rebukes.

  2. SeekerOfTruth
    September 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

    I stumbled upon this website searching for critiques of jans work, Let me first make it clear that I am NOT a christian, and I fully support the use of and have extensive experience working with psychedelics and related plant medicines. I think the fact that my views generally rest on the other side should give more creedence to my claim.

    Jan Irvin is an egomaniac, his experiences with psychedelics have tought him nothing and merely served to engulf him in his delusions. This is contrary to most peoples experience with these substances, and usually they reduce and/or annhialate the ego structure.

    It should be noted however that those with pre-existing mental conditions (including personality disorders) should not take psychedelic drugs of any kind. Jan Irvins fallacious claims are an abomination to the psychedelic community.

    And he attempts to argue things like man never landed on the moon and other unscrupulous bullshit claims that have no evidence to support them whatsoever.

  3. Michael.
    October 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

    It is written as ONUS not oweness.

  4. Jay
    September 18, 2016 at 10:58 PM

    I have no dog in this fight, but if I only had a dollar for every ad-hominem in your above rant about Irvin!

    • September 28, 2016 at 5:24 PM

      You’re an idot. You’re the one makin a logical fallacy by cherry picking (as does druggie shroomer guy the facts). Further, how are you so dumb you DON’T see you’re ad homining by what you said? You’re so blind you think merely bcz u don’t say “i hate you/idiot” but “hah ur wrongy wrongy wrongy wrooong” or “ad hominem, be blocked” that that’s any better? Ignored, Mr. Picker, ignored, negative slanter who throws the baby out with the bathwater.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: