Jump to content

Gary Habermas


fluffyapple

Recommended Posts

Have you guys heard of Gary and his arguments for the resurrection? I came across a YouTube video and people in the comments were talking about him turning them into christians and how modern atheism was based on ignorance. I feel kind of iffy about it because I don’t really want Christianity to be true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

A lot of people in this thread are going to ask you why you're still spending time with christian materials such as videos.  You may want to think of an answer or two.  Just a heads-up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, fluffyapple said:

because I don’t really want Christianity to be true.

 

Be cautious with this type of thinking.  Objective reality either IS or IS NOT. Our wants and desires influence our perception and interpretation of what is True, but have no bearing on the truth itself.

 

As to Habermas, I looked at it pretty in depth a few years back and found it lacking.  Unfortunately, because I discarded it fairly quickly I failed to internalize the argument.  If memory serves, his minimal facts approach treats the claims of witnesses and miracles as true at face value.  It's a simple argument that lacks grounding.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

Be cautious with this type of thinking.  Objective reality either IS or IS NOT. Our wants and desires influence our perception and interpretation of what is True, but have no bearing on the truth itself.

 

As to Habermas, I looked at it pretty in depth a few years back and found it lacking.  Unfortunately, because I discarded it fairly quickly I failed to internalize the argument.  If memory serves, his minimal facts approach treats the claims of witnesses and miracles as true at face value.  It's a simple argument that lacks grounding.

Thats true. I have to accept the facts for what it is and not go based off what I want. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A lot of people in this thread are going to ask you why you're still spending time with christian materials such as videos.  You may want to think of an answer or two.  Just a heads-up. 

It was in my recommended on YouTube so I figured I should press on it just incase I may have “missed out” on something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard plenty of apologists try to prove the resurrection (not Gazza in particular, but the arguments are almost always the same).  The uphill battle that apologists have, is that proving a crucifixion would not prove anything (as a form of execution it was used thousands of times, so someone called Jesus being crucified would be statistically likely).  They need to prove that Jesus was dead and then came back to life, and there is no evidence for that outside of the unfounded assertions made in the bible.  There are no claimed first hand accounts and the biblical writings are by unknown authors and from unknown dates (guessed to be decades or even centuries after the events).

 

There was one sect of Christians who believe Jesus survived the crucifixion as he was not up long enough to expire and didn't have his legs broken like the others (which is the normal way to kill the person quickly, as once they cannot support their weight they will be unable to breathe).  He rose after a few days of recovery, still showing the wounds on his body, and his followers quickly rushed him out of the country so that the Romans didn't finish the job.  They claim he fled to India where he lived out the rest of his life preaching, and there is a tomb there where they claim his remains lay.  Tomb Of Jesus In India

While the majority of Christians reject this (after all it removes Jesus's sacrifice and makes mockery of thousands of years of belief), a non-supernatural answer is automatically more plausible than the bibles supernatural one.  A failed execution being claimed to be divine favour would certainly set that person up for worship.  End of the day there is simply no way to ever know what happened, or even if the person called Jesus existed at all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
4 hours ago, fluffyapple said:

Have you guys heard of Gary and his arguments for the resurrection?

 

Yes. They are no better than WIlliam Lane Craigs or Frank Tureks. Or any other apologist. Simply put all the argumentation in the world is not sufficient to warrant belief in the supernatural claims.

 

4 hours ago, fluffyapple said:

I came across a YouTube video and people in the comments were talking about him turning them into christians and how modern atheism was based on ignorance.

 

Religious folks have been saying atheism is based on ignorance for millennia. Ancient Greeks were put to death for denying the obvious existence of the Gods. This is one of these self defense statements Christians say to make them feel safe and secure in their beliefs. Similar to saying we were not true Christians, or that we really do know God exists we just want to sin.

 

4 hours ago, fluffyapple said:

I feel kind of iffy about it because I don’t really want Christianity to be true..

 

This has been pointed out, but reality doesn't really give a shit about what you want. Either something is true or it isn't. If we are intellectually honest, we look at the arguments and evidence and follow it to its conclusion whether we like it or not. Most, if not all of us here have looked at said evidence, found it wanting, and that's why we are Ex-Christians. For me at least, it had nothing to do with not wanting it to be true, in fact at the time I very much wanted it to be true.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fluffyapple

 

Ok I watched a video of his and it went about like i thought it would. In the video that I watched he is talking about the success of the early church and how it is directly related to the resurrection. His reasoning for the success is "because people saw him again after the resurrection," then sites scripture where he was seen after the resurrection. This is a common tactic I've noticed. I came across an apologist last night when I was looking for that link I posted on your other thread.

 

First he went through the opposition to an old testament written by Moses. Then says that critics don't consider the "evidence" for an old testament written by Moses. Then proceeds to list Bible verse after Bible verse supporting the narrative of Moses. 

 

....................... mmmm ok. Well that supports nothing. That is where the story comes from in the first place. All those scriptures have to be verified true and accurate. Sadly the Bible epically fails to provide provable evidence for most of its entirety.

 

For a book to be considered nonfiction it has to be verified by a reputable source. You can't just slap nonfiction on something. A local man to my area enterviewed hundreds of members and former members of The church of God of the Union assembly. He wrote a very good book called Religion of Fear.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Fear-Story-Church-Assembly/dp/162190508X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=religion+of+fear&qid=1614112194&sr=8-1

 

If you are into reading about cults. This is a good one. I was a part of a church that broke away from this church. The church of God of the Gospel assembly. 

 

When Mr Cady wrote this book, to get it verified as nonfiction he had to submit it to the scrutiny of the university of Tennessee. After over a year of checks his book was approved to be marketed as nonfiction. 

 

I said all of that to say this. The story of the resurrection comes from the Bible which has a reputation for being inaccurate. Attempts to prove accuracy of the Bible fail time and time again. Many narratives were written well after the fact, which is provable because cities and events are mentioned that didn't even exist at the time of the narrative. Many "Prophecies" were written this way. They wrote them in past tense well after they happened. 

 

 If this guy is supporting the resurrection with scripture then he is just doing what any preacher does at the pulpit. He is just doing it from a different angle. Thats like saying the Langoliers are real because Stephen kings book said so. 

 

So why watch and listen to these apologists? You need to read books by the authors that he mentions as the critics for the resurrection. Read Bart Ehrmann, Price, Hitchins. Read their books and watch their videos, because they are going to give you a lot more provable evidence for their argument than this guy will. How can you know if he is really as good as you think if you don't check out his competition. When you read from the authors he mentions as critics I think you will find them much more convincing. 

 

When you watch this guys videos and read his articles your just sticking your head back up in the clouds again. 

 

Thats my two cents on this one a guess.

 

DB

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
8 hours ago, fluffyapple said:

Yes, an airport...

Okay.  There is a thought exercise from which you might benefit.  You need to find somewhere that you can observe a lot of people from all over the world at the same time and in the same setting.  Airports and international markets are good spots to do this.  You want an international population so you can be sure that the people you are observing represent different cultures, ethnicities, and, most importantly, different religions.  You should go alone, if possible, so as not to be distracted by conversation with friends or family.  Once there, find a comfortable place and simply... observe.

 

Observe the people.  Look past the hijabs, skin tones, and the fragrance of garlic and curry powder and see the people.  Observe them without thinking anything about them.  Try to find some teenagers from other places in the world and watch them interact.  Notice how parents and children respond to each other.  Watch young lovers and feel the emotions of joy and sorrow.  Notice the differences; but focus on the similarities.  Withold judgement of any kind and simply observe until you feel the oneness of humanity. 

 

Then ask yourself: if there were only one god who can reach all of these people, what would he/she/it be like?  What sort of characteristics would such a god need to reach all of these people?  In what ways would such a god reach out to everyone?  For the purpose of this exercise, forget what you have been taught about religion.  Ignore questions about heaven and hell and eternal dalmatians.  Instead, honestly search yourself until you come up with answers to these questions with which you are both satisfied and comfortable. 

 

The goal of this exercise is not to make the people fit the god; but, rather, to make the god fit the people.   It is easy to imagine a god who could reach everyone, if only these people believed this and those people accepted that.  But that will get you no further than any of the other religions already represented.  The Buddha would enlighten us all if only everyone believed the dharma.  jesus would bring salvation to the world if only everyone accepted him.  But if there is only one god, would it treat the muhammedan any differently than the practitioner of voodoo?  Would it not accept that both are simply seeking it as they know how?

 

A god who cannot reach everyone is not omnipotent.   And a god who cannot or will not understand the different ways people seek it is not omniscient.  As such, all gods fail; just as all religions are incomplete.  All of us simply have little pieces of god without the whole.  Those partial ideas of god can be excluded from your search.  You have to move past finding a god that only certain people fit until you can imagine a god who fits everyone, as they are, where they are, for who they are. 

 

When you can honestly answer the questions for yourself, to your own satisfaction and comfort, then you will have found, within yourself, The One True God.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
31 minutes ago, poci said:

Stab me with a knife, twist my neck and spit on my grave! You don’t care non atheists pain and struggles

Wow. So much drama for a non-topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2021 at 9:05 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ignore questions about heaven and hell and eternal dalmatians.

Eternal Dalmatians sounds more like heaven.

 

Cool thought exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, LostinParis said:

Eternal Dalmatians sounds more like heaven.

 

Cool thought exercise.

I occasionally throw an Easter egg into my posts, just to see who's paying attention.   😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I occasionally throw an Easter egg into my posts, just to see who's paying attention.   😉

I spotted it instantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 2/23/2021 at 10:01 AM, fluffyapple said:

Have you guys heard of Gary and his arguments for the resurrection? I came across a YouTube video and people in the comments were talking about him turning them into christians and how modern atheism was based on ignorance. I feel kind of iffy about it because I don’t really want Christianity to be true..

 

The biggest points have been mentioned. I'll add an opinion piece as well. 

 

1) There is no contemporary historical record during the early first century for either the life of jesus nor a cruci-fiction. Everything comes from late written material around the end of the 1st century at the earliest. Mostly coming from the 2nd and 3rd century periods. No jewish or roman records of jesus life or death. Let alone rising from the dead! You'd have to start out with solid evidence of his life before getting carried away with a resurrection claim, right???

 

2) Even if there was evidence of the life and death of jesus from the contemporary period, which there isn't, it wouldn't matter too much anyways because from a logical perspective the whole resurrection bit would more likely have been made up than factual. 

 

3) Habermas is a dumbass, basically. Seriously, he's pretty stupid about his arguments. Sucks to be Gary, basically. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 2/23/2021 at 10:21 AM, fluffyapple said:

It was in my recommended on YouTube so I figured I should press on it just incase I may have “missed out” on something. 

 

You can save yourself the trouble and just ignore anything coming from christian apologetic sources. I'm serious. I know that right now it seems wide open in your mind 'as if' the potential for them saying something true or substantial is a possibility. But it really isn't it. You can disregard anything from apologetic's and be the better for it. Instead of arguing with them all the time like myself and others and banging your head against the wall when they refuse to acknowledge their errors even if you spell it out in black and white terms. Arguing is essentially futile if changing their minds or making them see the light is the objective. 

 

People like Haberm-ass are brainwashed into their own delusions. They've been refuted over and over again. But they not only refuse to acknowledge where they've been refuted repeatedly, but continue on making the same refuted arguments 'as if' they are perfectly valid. It's delusional at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. 

 

If you want proof of the above, just give any example. There's an answer to any and everything apologist's claim. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

But they not only refuse to acknowledge where they've been refuted repeatedly, but continue on making the same refuted arguments 'as if' they are perfectly valid. It's delusional at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. 

 

At this point in my life I go with option 2 - dishonest.  But hey, the ends justify the means amirite?  Saving souls from Hell is surely more important than individual integrity.  Isn't that what Jesus means when he says to lay down your life for another?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

@fluffyapple I appreciate the question. Whenever I first had doubts about Christianity, I came to this website to pick the brains of the members here. I am going to go at Gary from a different angle:

 

I think what is most important is to be good at picking apart an argument because the premises following conclusion is shaky. When I was leaving Christianity, I had to learn how to think better. That does not mean you, or I, was stupid, but that the area of logical argumentation was not being properly applied to religious thought. It took me some time to do it, but now I am much better at seeing the gaps in logic that apologists use to try and sound reasonable. Where Gary's, and others like him, fall flat is that their standards of evidence are extremely low for their pet belief, but then they have these super high standards of criticism when it comes to other religions. To me, that is absolutely intellectually dishonest. There should be one, objective standard, by which all claims are measured. People like Gary give their faith a free ride, but will then rip into the same kind of claims made by Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. Only by listening to the other side did I pick up how to spot a faulty argument. I have a recommendation of a YouTuber who I think does a fair job of picking apart the claims of Christians, and that is Paulogia. Here is a video on his response to Gary Habermas's "evidence" for the resurrection :

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2021 at 9:01 AM, fluffyapple said:

Have you guys heard of Gary and his arguments for the resurrection? I came across a YouTube video and people in the comments were talking about him turning them into christians and how modern atheism was based on ignorance. I feel kind of iffy about it because I don’t really want Christianity to be true..

Check out this debate with Habermas and Arif Ahmed.  
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SuperBigV said:

Check out this debate with Habermas and Arif Ahmed.  
 

 

 

Thanks for this. I made it through their initial presentations and I was starkly reminded why I quickly dismissed Habermas.  I don't think the man can go more than one sentence without "if x." His entire argument is a bunch of if statements stacked on top of another as though that creates any kind of meaningful conclusion.

 

if god is real, then resurrection is no biggie . . .

if eyewitnesses saw who they thought was Jesus walking around  . . .

if there is an afterlife, then NDE's may tell us something . . .

if NDEs are valid then something . . .

if Paul and James, who were skeptics could come to believe in the resurrection . . . 

if the creeds formed within 5 years after the crucifixion . . .

if eye witness testimony is upheld in a courts of law and the bible claims eye witness testimony

therefore the data supports a physical resurrection occurred

 

As my grandfather used to say "if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Krowb said:

As my grandfather used to say "if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped"

LOL.  Your grandfather was a funny man.  I think it was Robert Price who said that with Christian apologists, if something is even remotely possible, however improbable, then for them it becomes highly likely.  I really like Arif's style, because he kept bringing up alternative supernatural explanations that I thought caused Gary Habermas to stumble a bit.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
13 hours ago, Krowb said:

 

Thanks for this. I made it through their initial presentations and I was starkly reminded why I quickly dismissed Habermas.  I don't think the man can go more than one sentence without "if x." His entire argument is a bunch of if statements stacked on top of another as though that creates any kind of meaningful conclusion.

 

if god is real, then resurrection is no biggie . . .

if eyewitnesses saw who they thought was Jesus walking around  . . .

if there is an afterlife, then NDE's may tell us something . . .

if NDEs are valid then something . . .

if Paul and James, who were skeptics could come to believe in the resurrection . . . 

if the creeds formed within 5 years after the crucifixion . . .

if eye witness testimony is upheld in a courts of law and the bible claims eye witness testimony

therefore the data supports a physical resurrection occurred

 

As my grandfather used to say "if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped"

 

We can't stress this point enough! 

 

"If X," is a presupposition claim. And questioning, struggling, and even head strong proponents of christianity have to face this fundamental fact. They have to face it because we will not allow them to get by without facing it. 

 

1) You have to start off assuming that a god exists. Without conclusive evidence that the claim is true. 

2) Then you have to assume, without conclusive evidence, that the bible is true. 

3) Then you have to assume, without conclusive evidence, that what your interpretation of the bible is, is true as well. 

 

You can take the above and then narrow it down to specific instances within the bible. Like the resurrection issue. The whole list of, "If X." This should reveal to an objective thinking mind how frail and uncertain the foundation of all christianity is at the very bottom. All of the preaching about NOT building upon sand foundations, and what do we find? 

 

We find sand foundations at the very building point for any theistic belief and christianity in particular. 

 

I could build anything up from the sand foundations of "If X." 

 

If the universe is a hologram, then nothing is actually real. Everything is illusory. And nothing really matters. I could formulate this into a religion if I wanted to. And it would set forward on the very same basis of "If X" that christianity is based on. At no point is "X" proven true or absolute. It's just a "what if?" scenario taken and run with.

 

If people believe the claim without the convincing evidence, so what? Does the fact that people believe my unproven claim make my claim any more true?  Would apologist's for my unproven claim have the power or ability to CHANGE the fact that the belief is strapped to presupposition in the first place, with no credible evidence to prove or support it? What sense does it make if I claim that the holographic universe told me in vision that you'll burn forever in torment if you don't believe my unproven claim? Does that make a lot of sense? If not, then people should look at why it doesn't make sense. Is it senseless because I clearly made this all up? And have no convincing evidence to prove it true? 

 

This is exactly what we're up against here with christianity, folks. And people struggling with belief in christianity. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

We can't stress this point enough! 

 

"If X," is a presupposition claim. And questioning, struggling, and even head strong proponents of christianity have to face this fundamental fact. They have to face it because we will not allow them to get by without facing it. 

 

1) You have to start off assuming that a god exists. Without conclusive evidence that the claim is true. 

2) Then you have to assume, without conclusive evidence, that the bible is true. 

3) Then you have to assume, without conclusive evidence, that what your interpretation of the bible is, is true as well. 

 

You can take the above and then narrow it down to specific instances within the bible. Like the resurrection issue. The whole list of, "If X." This should reveal to an objective thinking mind how frail and uncertain the foundation of all christianity is at the very bottom. All of the preaching about NOT building upon sand foundations, and what do we find? 

 

We find sand foundations at the very building point for any theistic belief and christianity in particular. 

 

I could build anything up from the sand foundations of "If X." 

 

If the universe is a hologram, then nothing is actually real. Everything is illusory. And nothing really matters. I could formulate this into a religion if I wanted to. And it would set forward on the very same basis of "If X" that christianity is based on. At no point is "X" proven true or absolute. It's just a "what if?" scenario taken and run with.

 

If people believe the claim without the convincing evidence, so what? Does the fact that people believe my unproven claim make my claim any more true?  Would apologist's for my unproven claim have the power or ability to CHANGE the fact that the belief is strapped to presupposition in the first place, with no credible evidence to prove or support it? What sense does it make if I claim that the holographic universe told me in vision that you'll burn forever in torment if you don't believe my unproven claim? Does that make a lot of sense? If not, then people should look at why it doesn't make sense. Is it senseless because I clearly made this all up? And have no convincing evidence to prove it true? 

 

This is exactly what we're up against here with christianity, folks. And people struggling with belief in christianity. 

 

 

3) Then you have to assume, without conclusive evidence, that what your interpretation of the bible is, is true as well. "

 

this is untrue.  and first starting out in Christianity this is could be quite foolish, though not ar first perhaps seen by a Christian.  it is also unwise to be too much that way (if you haven't studied and searched and asked questions first alot).  it is dishonest (or can be).  it does not show true humility necessarily, but could be ego and pride or assumptions.

 

and Christ is not such. "take my yoke upon you and learn of me for i am meek and lowly of heart and you will find rest for your souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.