Ok so I was sent this video by a christian and instead of typing out the whole thing for viewing like I usually do (which can take weeks) I am just gonna try to save time and just write points I hear from what he says.
The video is an hour and 21 minutes long. Wonderful. Why can’t this person ever send me something short?
Alrighty here we go:
“The Historical Evidence For Jesus’ Ressurection That Even Skeptics Believe…. Gary Habermas” is the headline that appears.
I watched the whole video first before I proceeded and will admit that I was completely stunned by the stupidity of what was said.
I decided this time to simply comment on everything that is said in order as it appears, rather than my usual typing everything that the apologist says.
He says “when he went to graduate school in the 1970’s (for what I can only assume was some kind of theology school) If you brought up the empty tomb there would be a lot of snickering”.
a)> Who is he kidding? People were even more brainwashed then, than they are now!
b)> So right off the bat he starts being dishonest. Why am I not surprised?
“Nobody but evangelicals, who published in that area, would accept it” he says. Meaning the preachers and apologists.
a)> People really gotta think about this and see how nonsensical and fictitious this statement is.
b)> That is pretty much the entire base and belief of christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead.
c)> He seriously expects people to believe that brainwashed christians in the 70’s didn’t believe in the empty tomb? Seriously think about this.
Gary says that “in the 70’s the majority of theology courses, scholars, historians, philosophers and teachers didn’t believe in Jesus’ bodily appearance after his death, the majority didn’t believe in that either.
– Gary now says that the majority believe.
a)> So by saying this, Gary is admitting that these people knew it to not be true, but taught it anyways.
b)> If he’s admitting that all these people who taught theology to people knew it WASN’T true and taught it, who’s to say that it’s not still the same, but they know it’s in their best interest to say they believe it to be real.
c)> There is still no reason to believe in an empty tomb and the fact is that there was never a tomb of Jesus found.
He then mentions that 2/3rds of biblical scholars, both skeptics and believers, believe in “the empty tomb”.
a)> Well let’s just think about this.
(1) Says who?
(2) Why would they when there’s no evidence?
(3) Bart Ehrman says differently to what Gary is saying:
(4) Not only does Bart Ehrman think that there might not have been an empty tomb, but that it could just been made up.
b)> This is of course something we are just taking Gary at his word for with nothing to back it up, nor a reason why such a ridiculous claim should even be believed about the 2/3rds of the people he mentioned NOW believing, or the majority not believing in the 70’s.
a)> Do people not find it weird that Gary is just quoting some anonymous prominent new testament scholar skeptic historian and says that he said “one thing’s for sure. The risen Jesus appeared to his followers, after his death”?
b)> It’s okay for Gary to just say someone said it, without giving sources? Why is that again?
c)> What’s the difference in me saying “I talked to 20 random pastors and they all admitted they didn’t believe in God and just wanted the job and the money.”
– Do you just believe me?
– I didn’t see anyone questioning Gary’s validity though.
Gary says that “the majority of theologians are conservative now”.
a)> Oh really Gary? You’re kidding? (sarcasm).
b)> Of course the majority of theologians are going to be “conservative”. Which he means to be “believing this nonsense to be true”.
c)> Here are some definitions:
d)> What would motivate someone to become a theologian in the first place other than being a brainwashed religious person?
e)> Surely someone who isn’t brainwashed to christianity would desire to be something actually useful and reality based.
a)> Very amusing how he was given a 180 page assignment on “why the resurrection was true” and told not to use the bible to prove the bible.
b)> He then never uses anything but the bible in the video.
Gary then says that “they have enough evidence to prove that Jesus was raised from the dead”.
a)> As I said though, I watched the entire video and waited for any proof that Jesus was raised from the dead and saw and heard nothing, so Gary is of course lying.
b)> This is very typical and dishonest christian speak and they do it over and over. Gary is no different.
Gary says that he is going to show us how after 30 years we used to think of the empty tomb as a joke, to now thinking the empty tomb is highly reliable.
a)> Having watched the entire video Gary shows NOTHING that makes the resurrection of Jesus reliable.
b)> This is another misleading strategy of apologists when they say they’re going to show us something and then never do.
c)> This is no different than a magician saying he’s going to show us magic, but then juggles chainsaws and contorts their body.
– You forget that what you’re seeing isn’t magic.
Gary then says (in a manor of speaking) he is going to prove things without using the bible, then he proceeds to say that the bible CAN be used for history.
a)> Nowhere in the entire video does he give any evidence of the bible, of Jesus, of the resurrection, or the empty tomb with anything that isn’t in the bible.
b)> This is completely misleading.
(1) Gary says that his school told him to prove the bible without the bible.
(2) He then implies that he is going to do so, but then never does.
(3) Gary even says his website has the links to his work of the evidence, but then never gives us any evidence.
(4) He gives people the impression that we are going to hear evidence outside of the bible, but as I said, we never do.
(5 min 40 sec)
Gary says that skeptics will allow for 6-7 parts of the new testament to be considered genuine.
a)> SOME skeptic scholars maybe might consider them written by Paul.
b)> The fact is that they are STILL skeptics and are skeptics for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) They don’t believe Jesus was God.
(2) They know that there is a plausible explanation for the empty tomb and everything else in the new testament.
(3) They think the whole Jesus story was based on myths and legends that are plagarized and copied.
(4) They think the whole story is one based on fraud, lies and deceit in a plan to make money and control people for power for other powerful greedy people.
(5) They think Paul was behind the whole plan.
(6) They think christianity is just something that people blew out of proportion from hearsay.
I found it amusing to go to his website
a)> There was no evidence of anything on his website of Jesus, the resurrection, the empty tomb, or ANYTHING.
b)> In fact I watched these 2 videos on his site from it and they were no more informative than this video I’m reviewing and commenting on in this article you’re reading.
c)> He simply spoke the same old things we just seen in this video.
Gary then says that if the bible is real and everything happened just like the bible said…. then Jesus was raised from the dead.
a)> There is absolutely no proof of this at all.
b)> If time travellers came into the past and raised Jesus from the dead would still be more plausible than the omnipotent master of the universe re-animated Jesus.
– If anyone finds the above amusing, just remember what it is that christians believe. That because Jesus was raised from the dead, he was God, or that God did it.
c)> If Jesus was really an alien with miracle performing technology, that would still be more believable than what christians believe.
d)> Either way, B, or C does not make Jesus “God”.
e)> Here is a great example of showing this in Star Trek: The Next Generation’s “Who Watches The Watchers”
f)> Also, this man was not God and he came back from the dead:
g)> When it all comes down to it though, if there was a CLAIM that they checked and seen that Jesus’s body was still there, people could be convinced that God simply made Jesus a new body.
h)> Jesus wouldn’t even need to have the same face when you think about it.
After Gary says that even if the bible is just a bunch of tales and stories, there is still enough evidence TODAY that Jesus was raised from the dead.
a)> Gary then asks HIS AUDIENCE how do we show that?
b)> Gary then never shows us anything in the entire video that shows this evidence in the 1 hour and 21 minutes of the videos entirety.
Gary says “what is that makes a historian Michael Grant say ‘that by normal historical methods, Jesus was raised from the dead”?
a)> Well first off, why wouldn’t Gary tell us the evidence that made Michael Grant come to that conclusion?
b)> Why wouldn’t Gary even tell us the book that Michael Grant has this evidence in?
c)> Why doesn’t Gary tell us anything, except “there is lots of evidence and lots of really smart scholars and historians think so”?
d)> Gary is just being a typical evangelist who simply makes claims but never says anything.
– A very common tactic they use.
e)> I challenge anyone to watch this video from this review of his video you’re reading here and count how many times Gary says he has evidence, or something is definitely true, but then actually says something.
– He shows no evidence whatsoever.
Gary tries to tell us that because the majority of scholars believe that 6-7 letters that Paul wrote were real that that is evidence of Jesus, the resurrection and that Jesus was God.
a)> Paul’s claim was that he had visions and since when did someone’s visions, or hallucinations prove anything?
b)> I could claim that scientist time travelers were sending me visions from the past and audio signals through my brain and are telling me “that everything about the bible, Jesus and the resurrection are fake and completely fictious”.
(1) No one is going to take me seriously.
(2) I can’t prove it.
(3) People will think I’m either lying, or nuts.
(4) So why is it that people believe the story about a magical being that gives immortality?
Gary says to “read Paul’s authentic writings to see that Paul was a scholar”
a)> Ok so they were well written and might have even been written by Paul.
(1) Doesn’t prove that the letters weren’t fictiously made by Paul.
(2) The letters don’t prove Jesus was resurrected, or that Jesus was God.
(3) So say someone is a scholar. They can’t write fraudulent fiction and make up things in order to scam people?
– YES THEY CAN!
Gary says that skeptics will always accept the following:
a)> I love Romans 13:1-7 that shows that Paul is simply telling people to pay money and serve their government.
– Romans 1:26-27 Paul condems gays. How bigotted and hateful.
– Romans 2:11 says God doesn’t respect anyone.
– 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 where Paul is against wisdom.
– Yeah no kidding. Why would Paul want people to realize reality when they could be paying money?
Lots of great stuff in “The Skeptics Annotated Bible”.
b)> None of these letters of Paul are able to make the things in the gospels real, or prove anything. So again Gary’s words fall flat.
Gary says “we know that Paul was changed” by the message.
a)> Well many scam artists will in fact put on a good appearance of something life changing.
b)> You have to wonder if Paul had any idea his charade would have such a money making extent that it did?
Gary then quotes Paul several times.
a)> Never proves anything.
b)> Keeps quoting.
Gary says that Bart Ehrman says “that they can trace the material to one year after the cross”.
a)> Of course Gary never shows us how.
b)> He sure likes to quote someone who knows admittedly more than Gary and doesn’t believe his silly beliefs.
Gary then tries to tell us that the bible has more credibility than much of history, such as Alexander the great who is documented and written about only as early as 300 years later.
a)> Okay, so then there is a good chance then that the life of Alexander the great we know of, is inaccurate, or even fictious, maybe even never existed.
b)> The fact that people are basing their lives around something which there is no record of except for nonsensical fairytales however is a huge factor.
c)> There is a political motivation for believing in christianity and a delusional sense of ever lasting life, aswell as a base for bigotted hatred of gays and also a base for mind limiting superstitions.
d)> There is no political motivation for lying about Alexander the great.
e)> Gary is doing nothing more than what I call “the older brother fallacy”.
– He is sounding like a small boy who asks his mother why his teenage brother gets to stay up late and play video games on the weekend.
Gary says that Skeptics say “you can’t compare the gospels which are prejudiced religious writings to Greco Roman histories”.
a)> No Gary is absolutely right.
b)> Only a fool believes something without evidence.
– Which is why I’m going to hold doubts about Greco Roman history at the back of my mind.
c)> It’s a good thing that neither the gospels, or Greco Roman history affect my life negatively by disbelieving them.
– Just the bible causes me problems by believing it because I would be living a lie and would be a slave to a lie if I believed it.
Gary then compares the gospels to ancient Greco Roman biographies.
a)> Whatever makes Gary happy.
b)> If there’s no way to make ancient history reliable and credible, well there’s nothing I can do about that.
c)> If it isn’t reliable, then it isn’t reliable.
d)> If it doesn’t involve nonsensical promises of ever lasting life that have no evidence, destroys the planet and is more than obviously nothing more than a money making tool, then I don’t care really.
(1) This applies to other religions also.
(2) Just like Gary thinks of ancient religions histories and gods, that’s just how I view Gary’s gods Yahweh and Jesus.
(3) I acknowledge that they were documented.
Gary then says how “there is an encyclopedia of documented miracles by Craig Keener”
Here it is:
a)> Obviously completely brainwashed.
b)> Fails to mention that for every “miracle” there is a disaster, catastrophe and tragedy.
c)> Just looking to delude people into religion.
Gary mocks skeptics by saying “so they’re all junk because they report miracles”?
a)> No they’re not all junk, but it’s just a simple fact that:
(1) You can’t change the fact that there is no video, or audio of ancient history,
(2) Nothing is provable in ancient history if it’s left undocumented for many years and there are no sources other than a few unwitnessed hearsay stories.
(3) Ancient history doesn’t affect anyone’s lives, whether it’s true, or not.
(4) Religion affects everything about someone’s life.
b)> Gary is just deflecting and nothing else from the fact that he has no evidence, but keeps bringing up evidence and says it exists and quotes other people saying evidence exists, but never shows us any.
Gary says how Craig Keener says “don’t call the gospels and ancient greek naive just because they claim miracles”.
a)> I will call anyone who believes ridiculous things without evidence “naive”.
b)> Why wouldn’t I?
c)> I will also call them brainwashed, gullible, illogical. and irrational.
d)> Super genius and PhD historian Richard Carrier explains “miracles” the best:
Gary then says he is only going to use from that point on his “minimal facts arguments”. At about 30 minutes 20 seconds in.
a)> His minimal points arguments are NON-EXISTENT points that he uses!
b)> Gary claims that all his minimal point arguments are accepted by everyone. Atheist scholar AND christian scholar.
– I find this extremely hard to believe since his points are all irrelevant and baseless and contain no evidence.
Gary again brings up Bart Ehrman and says that Bart claims that we can get Paul’s information that Paul wrote in his letters, from a year after Jesus supposed “death”.
a)> Gary then quotes 1 Corinthians where Paul is saying that he is writing from a year later from Jesus death (basically).
b)> So just because it’s written in the bible doesn’t mean that it’s true!
– Bats are not birds
– The Earth revolves around the sun
– The Exodus never happened.
– The flood was impossible.
c)> 1 Corinthians was written 25 years later at least and that is what SCHOLARS believe and have analyzed it to be. NOT a year later. End of story.
(1) Paul implied a year later, but it wasn’t true.
(2) All Gary is doing is attempting to use Bart Ehrman as a weapon in making points to Atheists, by connecting with his disbelief.
(3) Doesn’t change the fact that Bart doesn’t think Jesus was God and doesn’t believe in God.
(4) Doesn’t change the fact that Bart believes several different plausible scenerios could have happened.
(6) Doesn’t change the fact that Paul could have simply been in cahoots with James and Peter and they were running a scam and when Jesus died it was just them turning a bad thing into a good thing for their little business.
(7) Doesn’t change the fact that christianity is nothing more than a tool that is used to brainwash people to a lie and manipulate and control people, but mostly just to make people tons of money.
(8) Doesn’t change the fact that christianity is nothing more than a scam and is both harmful, wasteful and not real.
(9) Doesn’t change the fact that Gary is brainwashed to a lie and can’t deal with reality and has to convince other people in order to support his own delusion.
d)> Amusing how Gary gives no evidence of the gospels being written within 5 years of the crucifixion other than the gospel itself, which is evidence of NOTHING.
Gary then uses Bart Ehrman as a weapon to simply dismiss Jesus mythicists.
a)> Gary quotes Bart Ehrman as saying that Jesus mythicists don’t have credentials.
Really? Takes take a look at some of them.
(1) Robert Price
– Looks like he has great credentials to me.
– Well educated and several published books.
(2) Richard Carrier
– Interesting to know that Carrier used to believe in the historical Jesus and fought against the idea that the historical Jesus didn’t exist.
(3) D.M. Murdock/ Acharya S
– Awesome credentials and knows her stuff and published many well received books.
– Very interesting how she points out how there are plagarized verses in John that are used by Philo of Judea who lived around 20 BC to 50 AD.
(4) Great book the 3 of them wrote in response to Ehrman’s attack. Check it out.
Gary is so funny (not cause of the grease, or sweat stains on his shirt) because he says how he was so close to becoming a Buddhist, but this argument about the resurrection saved him.
a)> He said nothing of any relevance.
b)> Gary keeps saying he’s going to show us something, but doesn’t.
c)> He keeps implying that he showed us something, but really never shows us anything, but acts like he did.
d)> His audience just assumes that he did, but if they watch the clip they will see that he keeps saying he is going to show us things outside of the bible, but then tells us stuff from the bible seconds later.
(1) This is really unbelievable.
(2) It shows the power of people hearing what they want to hear.
(3) The believers hear him saying he is going to show them evidence, but he never does.
(4) He keeps implying that he showed us something, but it doesn’t matter how many times you watch this vid and rewind a couple minutes, he really never says anything.
e)> He just keeps using the gospels as evidence as if they were yesterday’s newspaper, or proven 100% fact!
Gary then has a completely laughable conversation with himself on stage as to what he BELIEVES Paul would say to James and Peter upon meeting them.
a)> This is of course proof of nothing.
b)> This is nothing more than Gary’s faith based thinking and OPINION being projected into peoples heads.
c)> So far this is around 38 minutes in and he has not said a single bit of evidence, not made a single worthwhile point and completely made this about nothing but “faith”.
(1) He has tried repeatedly to say that things are more reliable in the bible than some accepted history> NOT PROOF
(2) He has said he is going to show us outside of the bible how the bible is true> THEN IMMEDIATELY USES THE BIBLE EVERY TIME!
(3) He has said that the resurrection proves God and justifies his faith. > NEVER PROVES THE RESURRECTION!
(4) He has said that Jesus myth theories are uncredible and the people who write about them. > DOESN’T SHOW HOW AND JUST SAYS “BART EHRMAN SAYS THEY’RE DUMB”
d)> All I can do when thinking about the christian who sent this to me as evidence is LAUGH! Really hard.
Gary then says a translation of the Greek word “histor” which means “eye witness interview account”. He gets it from Galatians 1:18 he says.
a)> It isn’t in the english version and there is no such association either.
b)> These are more irrelevant words which is just Gary using the bible to prove the bible which is of course a waste of time.
c)> I think I will just skip commenting on this clip until he stops trying to use the gospel to prove the gospel with nothing else but the gospel.
d)> 5 minutes then went by with nothing but meaningless gospels pretending the gospel, with me listening carefully in case I missed something.
Gary’s next point is that “majority of scholars believe that 90% of Jesus’s audience was illiterate, so they told them stories (parable) that they’ll remember.
“Parables” for those who don’t know:
Parables of Jesus:
a)> He then says this was to show them morality lessons.
b)> That’s as far as it went though and this was of course proof of nothing.
Then in typical Gary disappointing fashion he says that Bart Ehrman cites 11 independent historical sources of the Jesus crucifixion.
a)> Gary of course doesn’t say what they are.
b)> It would be at least telling us something regarding the source of what Gary is talking about, but Gary doesn’t even tell us where Bart Ehrman said this and where we can go to look.
Gary then says one very amusing thing after the other. He quotes something he went to called “The Jesus Seminar” (whatever that is). The seminar apparently told Gary that if you have 2 sources for something then something has a lot greater chance of something being historical”
a)> Well that’s great that Gary is telling us like this Jesus Seminar thing is an authority of anything that is either reality based, or rationally based.
b)> Isn’t this kinda just common sense in the first place?
Unbelievable how Gary just keeps saying one thing after the other that just makes me bang my head against the wall about how anyone would not see what he is doing in the first place.
Gary says that it can’t be denied that scholars say that “Jesus earliest followers had experiences that they thought were experiences of the rise of Jesus”. That virtually nobody disputes that.
a)> So again Gary is doing nothing but simply dismissing the possibility of Jesus not being ressurected and nothing else other than “they say it’s true, so it must be true”.
b)> Of course his brainwashed christian audience eats this answer up and asks “if there are more meaningless answers?”
c)> Gary is projecting into peoples minds that “the resurrection is 100% true don’t worry, all the smartest minds in the world got together with scientific information and several undeniable sources I haven’t told you about, but wouldn’t lie because I believe in Gawwwd”.
d)> The facts still remain:
(1) Many well educated scholars have evidence to back up what they say contradicting both the resurrection and Jesus even existing.
(2) Gary still has given us NO evidence in this entire video and never does.
(3) Gary never counters anything in this entire video either, he simply dismisses things without even telling us why.
(4) Gary constantly projects his beliefs onto the audience and attempts for them to see and feel his blind faith.
(5) Gary repeatedly says that he is going to show evidence outside of the bible but never does…. in the entire video.
Gary then quotes someone named Del Allison (I looked but couldn’t find them) who calls themself a “cryptic deist” and says that they said “but I’m sure that the rise of Jesus appeared to his disciples after his death”.
a)> So I see that Gary is up here doing nothing different than what William Lane Craig does and is just giving us his opinions and other peoples opinions.
b)> Nothing of course of fact, but a lot of opinions from other people who just happen to share Gary’s blind faith.
c)> Gary then quotes other people who simply are saying opinon, but of course tells us nothing and acts like he is telling us something when of course he isn’t.
Then Gary does question time:
Gary is asked “how he thinks that Paul, James and Peter were credible”.
a)> Gary then says that there were psychology studies done on the eyewitnesses.
b)> Gary then mentions Richard Bauckham and his book “Jesus and the eyewitnesses” saying that he has a chapter that makes the witnesses sound credible by putting them through the same psychology studies.
(1) He is of course telling us nothing.
(2) He is quoting other peoples opinion and nothing else.
(3) He does it with a lot of enthusiasm.
Gary then says “if Bart Ehrman were here, this is what he would say”.
a)> He says Bart would say “that’s why we use Paul and that half dozen books”.
– Huh again?
b)> Gary says because Paul is a good scholar, in the right place, at the right time and he knows the other guys”.
– This of course tells us nothing and is just Gary rambling.
c)> He then says that “Bart says in his book that he wishes he was Paul and could spend 15 days with Peter”.
– Which of course proves nothing and makes no point.
d)> He says that Bart says “how much better eyewitness testimoney can you get?”
– WTF?! This still doesn’t answer the man’s question of “how they were credible?”
e)> Gary just rambles and babbles but really just says nothing and I can tell that he has no answer and just wishes to continue wasting time.
Gary then says “that if they don’t agree with this, that they can come up with an alternative thesis that explains this better, like they do in a court of law, but that the alternatives aren’t going to work that well”.
a)> You mean like Jesus myths that have multiple published books on them by credible scholars, that Gary has chosen to simply just dismiss without telling us “why”?
b)> We’re still on the subject of how were Paul, James and Peter credible?
c)> Gary’s still told us nothing but opinion ONLY and given us no evidence whatsoever and done nothing but simply dismiss any other possibilities because “scholars say”.
Gary then says that he has found 23 arguments for the empty tomb.
a)> Of course he doesn’t tell us a single one.
b)> Amazing how people actually accept these meaningless words he’s spewing.
(1) Because they are brainwashed.
(2) Because they heard what they wanted to hear, which was still nothing.
The man who asked Gary the question “how were Paul, James and Peter reliable” says he is going to repeat the question again.
a)> Obviously the man is intelligent and can see through Gary’s ridiculous diversion.
b)> Obviously the man is a skeptic and not mentally traquilized and mentally conditioned to only hear what he wants.
Gary says that “Paul was credible because he was a scholar and because his experience of Jesus changed him”.
a)> This of course tells us nothing and is nothing but a “non-answer”:
b)> So far Gary’s entire answers to people have been NOT answering and have just been avoidance.
The last 15 minutes isn’t even worth watching if you want any biblical evidence and is just more and more using the gospels to prove the gospels.
a)> Again here is the video I am writing about here:
b)> Please tell me any actual evidence Gary says in the last 15 minutes, or even of the entire video?
It actually was amusing how Gary simply turned the question around regarding outside sources and Paul’s credibility.
a)> Instead of showing outside sources showing Paul to be credible, Gary says “show me a source OUTSIDE of the gospels that say Paul WASN’T credible?”
b)> The fact that people can’t see through this meaningless nothingness that Gary is dishing out is staggering.
Gary is then asked regarding why Bart Ehrman is a skeptic but still believes the historical Jesus?
Gary then transitions to say that 70-85% of doubters doubt not because of “factual reasons” but because of “emotional reasons”.
a)> This is of course completely untrue and I’m not saying this out of bias, I’m saying as someone who knows from experience.
b)> I have no idea where this ridiculous survey came from since Gary didn’t give any references, but as an Atheist I give it no credit to being an accurate survey.
c)> I have no idea about percentages but I will list the reasons why people are Atheists:
(1) Didn’t get indoctrinated since birth.
(2) Didn’t get brainwashed by others when teenager, or older.
(3) Didn’t fall to human weakness and luckily they found inner strength and they dealt with life and problems like someone who wasn’t weak and cowardly and can’t deal with death.
(4) Educated and not kept from facts and knowledge.
(5) They see that not one single thing in any religion makes any sense and that religions are all quite ridiculous.
(6) That people realize that there’s no evidence for any religion anywhere and that science holds truth to everything else in existence.
Here is a great online list that someone made actually:
d)> What Gary fails to point out is that Atheism is the default position and that he is an Atheist to every other god and religion that he wasn’t brainwashed to, or indoctrinated to.
e)> I will also add that Atheism is NOT a religion, or belief, but the LACK of ANY religion, or belief.
f)> Atheism is reality, science and factually based.
g)> Religion is fantasy, myth and weakness based. (They will say religion gives them strength, but that is because they use it as a placebo and if they simply developed, or had inner strength they’d be fine)
Gary says “that in his recent survey, 19% of the people who were angry at God were Atheists” and then he says that he doesn’t believe in unicorns, but doesn’t spend his life hating on them”.
a)> This is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense and I find it amusing that he would use such a stupid argument and people still look at Gary like he’s some kind of genius.
b)> Atheists CAN’T be angry at something that doesn’t exist to them.
c)> Seriously think about this:
(1) WHY and HOW could someone be angry at something if they didn’t believe in it?
(2) By Gary saying this, he is doing nothing but mislead people into NOT thinking logically.
(3) It’s not that he doesn’t know that what he’s saying is misleading and untrue, he has a degree in Philosophy:
(4) So then what he is doing is something we call “lying”.
(5) Gary knows what he’s saying is an outrageous lie, but of course the christian believers only hear “Atheists are stupid” from Gary because of their brainwashing.
d)> Atheists are angry at religion and what religion does to people and how religion sets back the world.
Here are some reasons of mine included in this article:
Gary says near the end (while extending out his palm and his arm) “if the evidence is this good… why are there skeptics?”
a)> That’s very funny since Gary never showed us ANY evidence.
b)> Seriously, I challenge anyone to watch the video again and tell me what evidence Gary showed us outside of the bible.
(1) Gary implies he is going to show us evidence outside of the new testament… but then doesn’t.
(2) Gary keeps implying that he did show us evidence… but didn’t.
(3) Gary implies he can show us without using the bible… then uses the bible.
(4) Gary says in school he was told for his assignment he wasn’t allowed to prove the bible with the bible… then ONLY uses the bible to prove itself in this video and nothing else.
(5) Gary repeatedly uses Bart Ehrman as a reference for things… then never specifies what those things are.
(6) Gary says that 19% of Atheists hate God… then never says how that is even possible.
– This means that 81% who hate God are religious then? Deists maybe?
c)> There are skeptics because there are intelligent people who are smart enough to see through Gary’s dishonest tactics!
Gary says “the Atheist that rejects the evidence is not a rational person”.
a)> Gary never showed us any evidence in the entire video.
b)> I am not aware of ANY evidence for God, or that Jesus was resurrected, or that Jesus was God.
c)> A religious person who believes things without evidence is not a rational person.
d)> Gary is dishonestly misleading people and nothing else.
e)> Gary knows he is being dishonest and knows people can not tell that he is misleading them.
Anyway. Sorry this was so long, but so were Gary’s pointless videos! Hope you understand now a great example of a typical leading apologist and how they say absolutely nothing and really are incapable of saying anything else.