The God Who Wasn't There (2005)

There are a lot of people out here who believe a lot of things, I am continually amazed by these videos, where the filmmaker is determined to show us how smart he is and how stupid everyone else is. Well, it really didn't work this time.I appreciate that Brian Flemming feels some sort of loss at having a "Christian Education" that was flawed. But seriously putting Charles Manson out there as a representative of the Christian Faith...and, trying to corner the Dean or Principal of the his former school--Epic Fail. Again, there are enough people out there that would gladly enter the debate--no need to blindside people.

As a Christian, I watched this documentary eager to see how the producer would present his view. Most of my friends do not follow Christianity and I have respectful and stimulating discussions with them about our respective views.Having recently been reading "Zealot: the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth," I was expecting a much more robust debate and engagement with relevant literature (evidence, if you will). However, the producer has taken a similar approach to the one fundamentalist Christians are often criticised of: identify a few weak points in the Christian position, then spend the rest of the movie discrediting Christians for actions and views that are quite often unrelated to the original stated aim of the "documentary." In essence, combinations of the straw-person / ad hominem fallacies.Given the long and healthy tradition of academic rigor in agnostic and atheist circles, I was appalled that the producer was unwilling to engage a single historical or theological scholar from the Christian perspective. Instead, he trotted out several fairly minor academics for his cause and then contrasted their views to those of some relatively ignorant Christian lay people, pop theologians, authors a school principal. The producer completely by-passes the ancient non-Christian historical references to Jesus as a teacher and good man. Also, having stated that Christians don't understand how Christianity spread, I was waiting for information about the politicization under Empire, etc, but he just bumbles on.As identified in previous posts, the producer also mixes some spurious or outright wrong information into his analysis of the historicity of Christ, causing me to question his entire research (which seems to be pretty thin on the ground).The lack of research, ever-present vitriolic sarcasm and complete disregard for critical thinking (more leaps in logic than a gymnast on a vaulting horse), is why I gave this such a low score.One highlight: good overviews of synoptic gospel authorship and links between Jesus and previous deities in the ancient world, but those 10 minutes or so don't make this one to watch.I would say read "Zealot" and "Deconstructing Jesus" for a much better analysis of historical and theological arguments, then balance those with "The Case for Christ," or similar.

Amazing movie, though i do have to say i like Religulous a bit better, but over all i think both movies are amazing, all i can hope is it will open people eyes to the truth, that people still believe in make believe spirits and other such nonsense is truly sad and pathetic to say the least.Either way all i can hope is people like Brian Flemming will continue to shine the light on the complete ignorance and stupidity that is religion. How is it you grow up and no longer believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause because anyone with common sense realize there not real, but hey thats why its called a delusion.Hopefully some day people in general will get a clue and stop spouting all this retarded nonsense about some stupid make believe spirit, I wish to congratulate Brian Flemming for trying to educate the masses, please keep up the amazing work, if u can save but one person from the ignorance and stupidity of religion, then you truly made a difference.

The film isn't the worst in the world, but really posits itself as serious scholarship; which it is not. Unfortunately the fanaticism that film's creator uses to mock the Christian faith, is the same fanaticism he uses attempting to disprove the existence of Jesus. It lacks authentic scholarship by using sensationalism and an unfocused message.The focus is somewhat confusing. What is the goal of the film to disprove the historical Jesus or the Christian Messiah Jesus? Also, he starts many diatribes not related to the premise (e.g. his criticism of The Passion of the Christ, current Christian religious fanaticism). He uses the behavior of fundamentalist Christians to disprove the existence of a historical figure or a religious one????? Ultimately it seems that the same amount of faith to believe that a historical Jesus didn't exist is the same amount needed to believe he did exist.The film presents irresponsible scholarship cloaked in clichéd dance music, sound bites, and movie clips. It amounts to about 10 minutes of barely scholarly criticism of the Jesus Myth with the remaining time focused on mocking (sometimes deserving it) the behavior of fundamentalist Christians. Unfortunately the film's creator comes off as an angry former believer who feels duped by Christianity.