Irreducibly Complex Description Edit

G Man is a squawking idiot who doesn't even understand the simplest of concepts. Ideas that are available to infants fly right over G Man's head like a Learjet as he primes himself for his trademark "Let me axe you a question...". If you watch G Man's hangouts you can actually see the moment where he stops listening, usually a second or so after the other person has started to talk. G Man is the sole member of "errrrrrr Preaching to the Choir Ministries" and, whilst being oblivious to the fact that preaching to the choir is considered to be a bad thing, to date has managed to convert precisely zero people to his witless brand of radical, evangelical Christianity.

G Man is very particular with who knows his real name despite doxing himself on at least seven different occasions. He has Mentioned his name in comments sections, in his own videos and he has his name in his Paypal account. G Man's real name is so well known that there is no need to repeat it here.

G Man's Hobbies involve marathon running, endangering the health of himself and others as he makes videos whilst riding his bike without a helmet, humiliating himself on the internet, and watching wrestling.

G Man is the current Headmaster of "The G Man Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too."

G Man has an almost morbid fascination and obsession with white women. Dragnauct pointed this fact out years ago but has recently become blatantly obvious to others of the GDC. G Man's penis has been rather depressed ever since he discovered that his archenemy Reds Rhetoric was in a relationship with his latest vanilla fantasy, Hana Zubby.

Question axing goat

The Question-Axing Goat

G Man is the flagship member of the CCP and is probably the most well known. Even though he came later than TrueEmpiricism, he's made a name for himself by fulfilling every negative black racial stereotype that exists.

G Man's noted for having almost no comprehensive understand of literally every topic he speaks on, something that most would consider an impossibility. Many speculate that this is due to some mental impairment as G Man has the propensity to behave like a petulant child quite often. Like TrueEmpiricism, G Man lacks the ability to think critically or introspect, instead choosing to blame his interlocutors for the decline of a conversation, neglecting the fact that his constant interruptions, blatant insults, and ill temper were the actual culprits. 

G Man's mental capabilities have been the subject of debate for as long as he's been on youtube/google+. It's clear to all parties that he views the world in a strict dichotomy, leaving little room for grey area. Only recently has he acknowledged exceptions to any given scenario, but only mentions them as footnotes.

Other epic drama with G Man is that he became homeless and moved into a house owned by Shanny ForChrist from Youtube. In late January there was an argument over a phone bill and Shanny evicted Gman with dramatic back and forth videos and live hangouts of them fighting on Youtube.

G Man Drama Shanny ForChrist Evicting Him!!!!!

G Man Drama Shanny ForChrist Evicting Him!!!!!


G Man's landlord

Fun Facts Edit

G Man gets upset when his elk gets goated.

DO NOT ask G Man about a 'RED BUTTON'!

  • G Man, like many radical evangelist morons on the internet, has the two-dimensional mindset of a small child (where they think "If I close my eyes, they can't see me"). As a result, if someone says something that G Man believes to be untrue, they are automatically 'lying'.

Doesn't understand that you can't DMCA someone for using his real name or saying something that he doesn't like.

Thinks that Peter Pan and Robin Hood are different versions of Pan, the god of nature.

Thinks the reason men have nipples is to navigate in the dark.

Claims the Presup argument is a good argument for the existence of God, but doesn't know what the Presup argument actually is.

Claims the Kalam argument is a good argument for the existence of God, but doesn't know what the Kalam argument actually is.

Claims that Catholics aren't Christians, but will utilize Catholics when he wants to play the numbers game so that Christianity is the world's biggest religion.

Thinks grass is poisonous.

Maintains that dogs (and humans) are not Eukaryotes.

Thinks GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are created by injecting...something...into fully grown and harvested food products (like a butchered chicken breast), and are bad because (obviously) it's The Man™ trying to poison us again. Or something.

Owns a slave.

Famous Quotes Edit

"There are no starving Christians."

"Atheists don't exist."

"something something... Steve McRae is an atheist... something something..." (paraphrase)

"Adam and Eve might not have had 46 chromosomes." (paraphrase)

Super PowersEdit

- Narcissism

- Bull-Horn Master

- Fastest "Wait a minute, Wait a minute, Wait a minute, Wait a minute, Wait a minute" in New Jersey... his trademark technique to stop someone making sense to him.

- Impervious to arguments due to his capacity to not listen.

- Ability to find perfectly good safes, filled with cash, that have been thrown in the trash in poor neighborhoods.

- Keeps on "axing" questions even after being corrected on the proper grammar.

- Can Dox himself and his workplace and then blame others.

- The ability to think that if he persists in obsessing over certain atheists (such as Alex Botten or Matt Dillahunty) they will come to his hangout without notice and deal with him, even if they are +5 hours ahead of him and it's 4am.

- Declaring himself the winner of absolutely every single argument, ever.

-Owning slaves.

-Being a Death peddler (Merchant)

G Man's Greatest Hits Edit

- G man's Epic are not prepared for this! (YouTube: Steve McRae)

- G Man destroyed by Matt Dillahunty at the door (YouTube: CarefulAtheist)

- G Man destroyed by Cult of Dusty -No starving children (YouTube: Drunken Peasants)

- G Man: Cunt Fighter (YouTube: Sye Ten Atheist)

- G Man - The Motherfuckin Opera (YouTube: Sye Ten Atheist)

- G Man preaches to the choir (YouTube: Sye Ten Atheist)

PZ Myers (6-30-17)

- G Man vs PZ Myers (YouTube: Steve McRae )

- G Man vs AronRa (YouTube: Great Debate Community)

Assorted G Man Arguments Edit

4967755055 2fedf35384

Chocolate Jesus for a Chocolate Atheist

(Please add descriptions, details, and shortcomings for each.)

Answered Prayer Argument

The answered prayer argument was used by G Man to excuse him stealing from someone's safe. G Man was behind on the rent and prayed for divine assistance and this assistance came in the form of a safe full of cash that G Man found. Instead of doing the decent thing and reporting the find to the relevant authorities, G Man pocketed the cash for himself. Astonishingly G Man considers this theft to be something to boast about, although it has been rumored that G Man simply made the whole incident up, rendering him only a liar as opposed to a thief and a liar.

Generally though, this argument goes as follows: "The Bible says that God will (sometimes) answer prayers. Sometimes, when people pray for things, they get what they prayed for. Therefore, God exists and the Bible is 100% correct." Firstly, G Man has not proven that it is not possible to tell the difference between God saying "yes" and something that would have happened anyway (fate/luck/coincidence), or the difference between God saying "no", God saying "wait", God not responding at all, or God not existing. Also, there's the obvious fact that this argument could (by replacing a few words) be used by any religion, ideology, or belief system that includes prayer and would be just as effective, so can't be used to specifically support Christianity or its god.

Natural God Argument

G Man maintains that, citing dictionaries and unsuspecting non-believers, that an atheist cannot, by definition, believe in the existence of any gods. Most will agree with this sentiment, as even though there is some dispute as to the definition of atheism being the claim "there are no gods" or just "I don't believe in gods," both definitions preclude that an atheist must reject the idea of gods. So far, so sane.

However, G Man asserts that this rejection must extend to "natural gods", as well as to supernatural gods like the ones postulated by Christianity, Islam, and so on. To G Man, a "natural god" is a god with no supernatural abilities, properties, or characteristics, but is called, or can be refereed to as, "a god." This can include things like money, sex, influence, power, etc which can be "worshiped" by people, or something as simple as a religion which deems its human members as "gods." He preaches that, if a person believes in the existence of any of these things, then that person cannot be an atheist, and is instead just a Christian-bashing God-hater who needs to repent to Jesus. Therefore, because there are no such people who disbelieve in "natural gods," that no atheists exist. One example of G Man using this argument (of which there are many) can be seen in the aftershow of a heated conversation between AronRa and Kent Hovind on Steve McRae's and Kyle Curtis' "The NonSequitur Show".

The most obvious problem with this argument is the obvious equivocation between definitions of the word "God" as to mean "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers" and the more tame definition meaning "a person or thing of supreme value" [definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary], and to claim that an atheist should not be capable of ascribing, recognizing, or accepting that things can have value is completely asinine. Secondly, even granting him that some people do hold certain things to high value does not mean that they worship them, as just because something is a god (by either of the aforementioned definitions), that does not mean that it must be, deserves, requires, or even desires worship. Finally, regarding religions with "natural gods", G Man forgets that, simply because someone claims they are a "god", that does not mean that they are (by any definition). This section of his argument depends entirely upon an atheist taking a complete stranger at their word that they have supernatural abilities or supreme value, neither of which are necessarily true. In short, this part of the argument fails because it is possible to accept that a person exists and not accept whatever it is that person believes, which should be REALLY fucking obvious, especially for someone who spends so much of his time debating his ideas with other human-beings on the internet.

Really, this argument's main logical issue is that it simply defines "gods" into existence: It just asserts that something (usually a person) is a "god," gets an atheist to admit that they they believe in the existence of that thing, then declares victory. In essence, this argument fails because it commits the fallacy of equivocation and completely ignores the concept of the burden of proof for both its premises and its conclusions.

Ironically and apparently completely unbeknownst to G Man, this argument is just as much against the label "monotheist" as it is the label "atheist." If people can't be atheists because they believe in the existence of natural gods, then people also cannot be monotheists because, even if they only believe in one supernatural god, they also believe in the existence of multiple natural gods. So interestingly, in order for his argument to be valid, G Man has to denounce his own theology. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a excellent and truly miserable logical-own-goal.

Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of a position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.

To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than the complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, dear reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an agnostic (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is DEEPLY flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that same mind out of this argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited existence on this Earth.

Dogs Live for Millions of Years

Simple Gary

Men use their Nipples for Navigation in the Dark and for Mucus Production

Debunking the No True Scotsman Fallacy by Being: The Chocolate Atheist

I'll get around this one eventually...

GMan mirror- My First Video hangout as a Atheist!!!!!! starts really soon1

GMan mirror- My First Video hangout as a Atheist!!!!!! starts really soon1

"Atheist Have no Morals"

Adam and Eve Knew of Good and Evil BEFORE They Ate the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

"It's Only Adultery if you Don't Get Permission From your Spouse"

Chromosome Number is Related to How "Evolved" an Organism is

The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy Doesn't Apply to Christians

This argument is a special kind of StupidTM. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be God, therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly or without hiding it deep inside of a more complex argument. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically-challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.

G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any Christianity because... "Christians don't believe in gaps.... There are no gaps. [God created everything.]" No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.

(Will Expand Upon Later)

G Man Thinks GMOs are a Type of Hormone Comprised of Organisms fed to Chickens to Make Them Fat, Which in Turn Makes People Sick and Gives them Heart Attacks... and He's Waging a 1-Man War Against Them

Mormons Aren't Christians

G Man on Evolution Edit

G Man's style of "argumentation" against evolutionary biology is "axing" very (very) dumb questions that are, in his mind, brilliant gotcha questions that no "evilutionist" can answer, which shows "just how stupid their position is". When G Man's sees another person struggling to respond after hearing one of his questions he just "axed", he takes it as confirmation that his questions are hitting the mark. However, the real reason people are often flabbergasted after hearing his questions is that they are dumbfounded by the stupidity of the questions that exposes G Man's lack of understanding of even the basics of biology. Sometimes, the question isn't even related to the topic, which exposes his lack of understanding even further. Another aspect of his style is (not always, but very often) (1) not letting another person respond for more than a couple of seconds without interruption and (2) refusing to give straight answers to questions directed at him. He uses this tactic not exclusively during discussions on evolution though.

Most of his questions are based on gross misconception of what evolution is and how it works, which are easily corrected during any high school class on biology. Whether the questions are based on his utter ignorance on the subject or his dishonest straw-man versions of evolution (or a combination of both), is a mystery that only God knows the answer to. Because most of his questions contain claims about what evolutionary biologists claims, it prompts others to "axe" for the source for his claims. He usually responds by saying "I got it from you guys!", even when no one ever said what he claimed they said. When someone goes further and "axes" for a citation to a science textbook as the source for his claims, G Man completely dodges the question.

His favorite question he often "axed" (paraphrased):

"How can a dog turn into a non-dog?"

He never phrase this question correctly. The proper way to "axe" it is this: "How can a population of dogs become a population of non-dogs after many generations?" His inability to phrase the question this way probably stems from his lack of understanding (or refusal to understand) that evolution is a change (in allele frequencies) within a population (not an individual) over generations (not during an organism's lifespan). However, even when the question is asked properly, the proper answer is pointing out that no evolutionary biologist has ever suggested this can happen. In fact, they state the very opposite. According to the principle (or law) of monophyly, organisms that are descendant of any clade would still be a member of that clade. Canids (i.e. dogs) will always be canids and so will all their descendants be, and they will also be mammals, just like humans and their descendants are and will always be mammals. This has been explained to G Man many times. He usually ignores most of the answers he gets, especially the ones he doesn't like expect. Eventually, this one answer got through to his thick skull. However, he still got some more questions he would like to "axe" about this. These are quoted verbatim:

"If you are saying a dog will never become a non-dog, right, a dog is always going to be a dog. How am I related to a dog? I am a human being. I am not a dog.

"If you are saying that canines are always going to be canines, and I am a human being and I am not a canine. How am I related to them?(source)

The only way these questions can make any sense is that G Man has the misconception that humans evolve from dogs and thus either violating the rule "a dog will never become a non-dog" or it would mean that humans are still dogs. Of course, he wouldn't except that humans are dogs (and nobody in their right mind would) which is why he states in his question "I am a human being. I am not a dog". Humans didn't evolve from dogs. Humans and canids evolve from an ancestral species. That species was neither a human species nor a dog species. G Man would probably think that this still violates the rule, but it doesn't. Dogs cannot turn into non-dogs, but that doesn't mean that dogs cannot come from something that wasn't a dog. Even though it wasn't a dog nor a human, the common ancestor of humans and dogs was a placental mammal (and also a tetrapod, vertebrate, chordate, deuterostome, animal and eukaryote). Both humans and dogs STILL are placental mammals, which is in agreement with the principle of monophyly. Here is a more detailed answer to these dumb questions.

Like most creationists, G Man is unable and unwilling to understand that humans are animals according to the biological definition. The word "animal" in non-scientific contexts is often used in many different ways, most of the time in a pejorative manner. Someone who says "That person is such an animal" is taken to mean that the person is behaving uncivilized, wild, aggressively, on instinct alone without reason. Humans have lumped all these negative attributes onto other creatures they deemed inferior, based on their superiority complex called "Anthropocentrism", which often takes the form of the phrase "God created mankind in his own image". According to this sense, calling someone an "animal" is like saying the person is not human (or sub-human). This is why G Man finds it offensive when the evil "evolutionists" call him an animal. This is total nonsense of course. Having a basic knowledge of human history, everyone knows that humans can be and still are very aggressive and often act without reason. We are the only species, aside form one of our close relatives, Pan troglodytes "the common chimpanzee", who wage wars. Also there are animals who are very peaceful when compared to us. Our other close relative, the bonobo, has quite literally a "make love, not war" life style. And you cannot behave any less wild and aggressive than a sloth, unless you are a sponge. Because different animals can behave completely different, the common creationist argument:

"Evolution lowers man from the “image of God” to the level of an animal. Why then should he not behave as one, in his own life and towards others?" Source: AiG

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The word "animal" has a clear and unbiased definition in biology. Animals are multi-cellar, eukaryotic organisms. Meaning they are living things that are made of multiple cells, each of them containing (or contained) a nucleus. Animals are also heterotrophic, meaning they cannot fix carbon, meaning they cannot convert inorganic carbon (like carbon dioxide) into organic compounds that are used as building blocks for growth or broken down to release energy. If an organism doesn't acquire any organic compounds, it will eventually die. Fungi are also heterotrophs, thus both fungi and animals must consume organic compounds that are already by or present in other organisms. However, fungi consumes organic compounds by secreting enzymes into the environment and absorbing the dissolved (not degraded) organic compounds from the outside. Animals (and only animals) on the other hand, acquire organic compounds by ingesting other organisms (or their produce) and digesting them internally. Further characteristics of animals are; being motile at some stage during their lives and their body plan becomes fixed after development. In summary:

Animals are heterotrophic, multi-cellular, eukaryotic organisms that need ingest and internally digest other organisms (or their produce) in order to survive. They are at some point motile and their body plan becomes fixed after development. Taxonomically, animals are members of the kingdom Animalia, also called Metazoa. Phylogenetically, all animals share a common ancestor which is not shared by any non-animal, thereby forming a monophyletic taxon (also known as a clade).

By definition humans are animals, both according to their characteristics and phylogeny. And humans have been classified as animals (and more specifically as primates) by the christian creationist Carl Linnaeus 74 years before Darwin was born.

When G Man is confronted with all this, he just "axes" more stupid questions or says something amazingly dumb like:

"According to you, humans are not humans, they are animals."

Apparently according to him, when you are saying that humans are animals you are saying that humans are not humans, since something cannot be a human and an animal at the same time. That is of course wrong, because humans can be both humans and animals at the same time in the same way dogs can be both dogs and animals at the same time. After being explained that humans are a species of animals and animals are a taxonomic kingdom, G Man had this to "axe":

"If humans are a species and animals are a kingdom, who is their king?"

The only proper response that was (and could be) given:

"You're too fucking stupid to even have this conversation!"
== G Man on Creationism == His definition of what a "kind" is:

"An animal that's the same thing as an animal."

Dumbfuck of the Year Award Edit

G Man is the winner of the "DFotY" award for 2015 with 120 votes, more than twice the number of votes as Brett Keane, the runner up, with only 49 votes.

Reds Rhetoric's "THE 2015 "DUMBFUCK OF THE YEAR" AWARD CEREMONY" (1/11/15)
Gary the Goof

Special note: Due to the extreme chance of G Man winning the DFotY every year, new rules had to be instated by Reds Rhetoric that someone could only win the award once in order to allow other dumbfucks to have a potential shot at the title. Red may be ...., but don't let anyone ever say he's not merciful.



G Man and AronRa Edit

After a discussion on the NonSequitur Show between AronRa and Kent Hovind, an aftershow was held on the Great Debate Community (community) YouTube channel. During near the middle of the aftershow, G Man was invited into "hangout and chill" with Aron... G Man however took this to mean an open opportunity to be a royal buffoon resulting in quite possibly the funniest hangout of all time. (All known as the "G Man's Cat incident.")

Elephants and Pine Trees, the Aron Ra and Kent Hovind/ Doubt and Devout After Show

G Man Soundboard Edit

By popular request, Kevin Buchik assembled a collection of G Man catchphrases, sounds, and other particularly hilarious audio clips into a soundboard, in spring of 2018, which was then widely used and abused by a number of people in live hangouts (particularly Dragnauct Sylvas, who was making frequent videos exposing G Man's behavior at the time).

Known Doxxer Edit

G man is a notorious doxxer and should not ever, under any circumstance, be trusted with any personal information of any kind.