News

Creationist’s anti-atheist movie wins ‘Best Science Film’ award

Creationist’s anti-atheist movie wins ‘Best Science Film’ award

Earlier this year a 260-pound former professional boxer, ex-cop and fundamentalist Christian sat down to watch Ray (Bananaman) Comfort’s latest movie, The Atheist Delusion: Why Millions Deny the Obvious.

It left Matt Barber, above – author of Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity – “balling (sic) like a baby”.

After writing here that “those who deny the existence of their Creator are delusional”, Barber, “a columnist, a cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law”, said:

I mean it when I say The Atheist Delusion is the most persuasive and captivating answer to atheist questions I’ve ever seen on film. Without giving too much away, let me just say that non-believers and believers alike will be moved emotionally, spiritually and intellectually.

I have no doubt that many who claim atheism at the beginning of the film, will be left well on their way to admitting His existence and infinite glory toward film’s end.

Comfort, left, teamed up with creationist Ken Ham to make his award-winning movie

Comfort, left, teamed up with creationist Ken Ham to make his award-winning movie

Well, tears came to my eyes too – tears of mirth – when I learned today that Comfort’s film  had won the “Best Science Film” at the International Christian Film Festival.

According to the festival’s atrocious website, the movie, along with other award-winning entries, will be screened on Sunday October 2 at The Woodbridge Community Church in Irvine, California.

Bob Seidensticker, one of a number of reviewers who went through the ordeal of watching this steaming heap of manure (tagline: “Atheism destroyed with one scientific question” ) wrote here:

I don’t remember a single correct scientific statement from Ray in the entire movie. The entire thing collapses into a pretentious pile of elementary and emotional arguments, which, unfortunately, may be effective on people who haven’t thought much about these issues.

And he wound up with a quote from Mark Twain’s Life on the Mississippi:

As for the contents of his skull,  they could have changed place with the contents of a pie  and nobody would have been the worse off for it but the pie.

32 responses to “Creationist’s anti-atheist movie wins ‘Best Science Film’ award”

  1. barriejohn says:

    Barberpapa writes pieces for the Christian Post:

    The Holy Spirit made it crystal clear. When Tristan Emmanuel, managing publisher and CFO of BarbWire Books, called me and said it was time for me to put pen to paper and write a book on the anti-Christian left’s demonic war on religious liberty (and all things godly and good), I immediately agreed.

    And so with the tireless help of my project partner — author, researcher, editor and veteran intelligence expert Paul Hair — I have now released my new book, “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity.”

    Why did I write the book? Because it had to be written. God’s natural created order, His immutable, scientific and transcendent moral precepts, as well as the very lives and livelihoods of Christian Americans, are under vicious attack today at a level unprecedented in American history.

    I had to sound the alarm. And I had to lay out a clear defensive strategy as to how we Christians might preserve our American, indeed our Christian, way of life.

    Who’s the fucking deluded one,then? Bet you can’t wait to read it!

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/hating-jesus-liberals-declare-spiritual-warfare-opinion-164674/

  2. Daz says:

    I note that, according to the website (which is indeed atrocious), it's possible for an international film festival to have a "Best Foriegn [sic] Film" award. Which is proof that either miracles or morons exist. Ho-hum.

  3. Daz says:

    from barriejohn’s quote:

    “When Tristan Emmanuel, managing publisher and CFO of BarbWire Books, called me and said it was time for me to put pen to paper and write a book on the anti-Christian left’s demonic war on religious liberty (and all things godly and good), I immediately agreed.”

    And now, amended for transparency:

    “I ‘agreed’ to publish a book via a publishing house of which I ‘just happen’ to be founder and editor-in-chief.”

    Not only that but “my project partner — author, researcher, editor and veteran intelligence expert Paul Hair” reads amazingly like “my ghost-writer, Paul Hair.” Which, if true, would mean that not only is it a vanity publication, but it’s a ghost-written vanity publication.

    My mind, it is boggled past hope of ever being free of a boggle again.

  4. barriejohn says:

    Which is proof that either miracles or morons exist.

    Or Mercans.

    It’s because the whole universe revolves around America, and the terms American and Christian are, according to Barber (see above), interchangeable.

  5. barriejohn says:

    Tristan Emmanuel is an interesting character as well, full of Christian charity and love:

    In early 2014, Tristan Emmanuel worked with Freedom Press to make a video heavily criticizing comedian Bill Maher on his show for calling God “a psychotic genocidal mass murderer” when discussing the Genesis flood. Emmanuel in the video advocates reenacting legislation based on the Blasphemy Act of 1697 in order to “hold blasphemers accountable” as he expresses his view that the United States is built on Biblical authority and that “a day of reckoning” will cause God to condemn the nation. Many internet users have criticized Emanuel for his dismissal of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in favor of blasphemy laws, and his immorality of advocating acts such as imprisonment and flogging against blasphemers. Users have also pointed out the fact that the blasphemy act Emmanuel draws from was in establishment while the thirteen colonies where still under British control.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_Emmanuel

    I sometimes think that they are right, and evolution is a complete myth.

  6. Daz says:

    Barriejohn, talking of regression to the seventeenth/eighteenth century, how about this for a pretentious pile of diseased dingo’s kidneys?

  7. barriejohn says:

    Daz: I agree that the murder of innocent children should not go unpunished. Not sure what that’s got to do with abortion though. We’re obviously not dealing with very highly developed life forms here.

  8. Cali Ron says:

    Please note his opinions do not represent all or even most of Americans. However, if Trump gets elected I will remove “most” from that comment as I apply for a work visa. I hear a county in Ireland is offering a special deal for Americans fleeing the country after the election.

  9. Cali Ron says:

    Sign I saw in Ireland, “drinking is my religion, care to join me in prayer? “

  10. RussellW says:

    barriejohn,

    Do any of these Christian religiots really understand where the Genesis flood myth originates? It’s a Sumerian myth from the Bronze Age, or earlier, which the Hebrews plagiarised. So Christians are actually pagans.

  11. Stephen Mynett says:

    Christians lay claim to many things but few, if any, have been invented by them. I had some sanctimonious shitbag trying to persuade me that marriage was a Christian thing and because of that it was correct to deny marriage to same sex couple.
    The response that marriage existed before Christianity was just ignored. The three wise monkeys look quite reasonable when compared to religionists.

  12. RussellW says:

    Stephen Mynett,
    Yes, wilful ignorance of history seems to be a prerequisite for religious belief.
    Actually for much of the Middle Ages, marriage wasn’t a ‘Christian thing’. Most lower class couples simply declared that they were married and their relationship was recognised, consent and consummation were all that mattered. The expression ‘common law marriage’ reflected the reality. It was different of course, with the ruling oligarchy, money was involved and the Church was naturally interested. It’s another of those occasions when the Middle Ages weren’t as ‘medieval’ as assumed these days.

    I don’t know when the Church took over the marriage business, probably in early modern times.

  13. Daz says:

    “It was different of course, with the ruling oligarchy, money was involved and the Church was naturally interested.”

    To be fair to the church, the interest went both ways at first. The system of primogeniture required accurate records of marriages and births—and the clergy were the only people around who (a) probably weren’t possibly-self-interested relatives, (b) were members of a stable institution which was likely to be around for the long term needed for keepers of records which were updated on a generational timescale and (c) were able to read and write.

  14. RussellW says:

    Daz,

    Agreed. My point was that in the case of most of the population who could probably carry all that they owned, the Church took little interest in the institution of marriage. Of course record keeping was a nice little earner for the Church.

  15. barriejohn says:

    My father was researching our family history on Genes Reunited, and when he died I took over his account, as my nieces have lost both parents in tragic circumstances and are very interested in their ancestry. Someone distantly related contacted me and warned me about “skeletons in the cupboard”, but the warning was unnecessary as we had already set a few loose. However, she revealed that my great-great-grandparents had never married. I suppose that some would be shocked, or even upset, to learn this, but I guess that a lot of strange things went on in the sleepy little villages of south Hampshire. My late, and much-missed, friend’s great-grandmother never left the village of Potterne, near Devizes, during her entire life, so had no real idea what life was like elsewhere!

    Cohabitation was certainly more common in the past, both in Britain and the US, than we might be led to believe:

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/living-in-sin-cohabiting-as-husband-and-wife-in-nineteenth-century-england/406907.article

  16. Laura Roberts says:

    Fundamentalist Christians debating science is about as useful as toddlers debating economics: they have no experience with it, and only dimly understand how it impacts their lives. This is more about Christians making each other feel better than science or movies.

    Deeply religious people feel safe only when ensconced in their own communities. If we wish to disabuse them of irrational beliefs, it is our duty as atheists to be as welcoming as possible and to spend time with them. Not only will it force them to confront the disparity between what they’re told and reality, it gives us an opportunity to guide them gently toward a more rational and a healthier way of living.

  17. RussellW says:

    Laura Roberts,

    Good luck with that approach. For most fundies, ignorance is their armour.I’m sceptical in regard to the idea that believers can be reasoned away from religion.

  18. barriejohn says:

    RussellW: Not so. I was, as a young man, an almost fanatical fundamentalist, and never gave any quarter to those who attempted to point out the inconsistencies in my belief system, but, like little drops of water, it all had its effect, and I finally had to throw in the towel and admit defeat – it was all a massive delusion, and I had been hoodwinked. That’s why I keep commenting here and elsewhere, as I know that, despite appearances, they know, deep down, that they are wrong, and all the bluster is just evidence of that fact: “The lady doth protest too much”.

  19. RussellW says:

    barriejohn,

    That’s encouraging, I’ve never been religious, so belief is completely incomprehensible to me. I’ve always assumed it was more a psychological characteristic than an intellectual position. I can understand why religiots regard every infidel as the enemy, we’re living breathing examples of other world views.
    Did you in some way separate yourself from your fellow fundamentalists? If so, did it encourage the process of gradual disengagement from your religion. I should add that, like most people who comment on this site, I’m also sceptical as to the motives of religious leaders.

  20. Whilst it is true that Christians are in general despicable, the Left are even worse–and far more dangerous. They would be prepared to destroy their own society and culture for the sake of mad ideology. And since–just like religious believers–they are incapable of error, they will never realise the full extent of their own folly and madness. It goes without saying that the Right are little better. A possible solution to these grave problems? Believe in nothing, nothing at all–though this method can of course also have its own detrimental effects on the psyche. What an effing world we live in, eh?

  21. Matt, the Demon Barber. Yet another handsome devil to hate. But as somebody once pointed out, nobody ever fantasises about being raped by a liberal.

  22. Laura Roberts says:

    RusselW, barriejohn: Like barriejohn, I was raised in a religious environment and believed all kinds of “woo” when I was young (UFOs, Bermuda Triangle, ESP, etc.). It started to dissolve when I started college, but fell apart completely when I took a philosophy elective on critical thinking.

    I’ve been encouraged by Peter Boghossian’s approach to street epistemology (and Anthony Magnobosco’s examples of it). I’m becoming convinced that the secret is to give people a non-threatening path away from their irrational beliefs that also expands their social network, allowing them to feel safe leaving their religious community behind.

  23. Many people desperately need to place their faith and hope in irrational beliefs so as to make their pointless, miserable existences appear valuable, necessary and worthwhile. However, religious beliefs, like all beliefs, are untrue. This is the sweet revenge of the nihilist and the atheist–unless these latter two opinions themselves become belief systems, which is always to be strenuously avoided.

  24. Trevor Blake says:

    Notice the trick. A faith that uses reason and science to discredit reason and science to support a faith, which is inherently not reason and not science.

    Faith, a preference to believe something without or against evidence, has its place. Let drowning men and lovers have faith. It adds poetry to a sad world. But let faith be faith.

    And let fools be mocked.

  25. barriejohn says:

    RussellW: It’s a long story, but the years of self-deception and inner conflict (science teacher trying to reconcile Genesis with known facts, gay man trying to explain away blatant homophobia, liberal-minded person asked to support fascistic views, intelligent person expected to believe in scriptural infallibility) took their toll, and I eventually suffered a “nervous breakdown”. My Brethren friends wanted to pay for referral to a homoeopath, believe it or not, but I received NHS therapy and survived. I had stopped attending “meetings”, and finally came the epiphany when I said to myself, “I don’t believe that load of nonsense any more, so why keep up the pretence ?”, and a great weight fell from my shoulders, and I began to live. My advice to anyone else suffering such inner turmoil would be, “Throw off the shackles, you have nothing to lose but your misery.” When you’re in that situation you’re obviously going to fear losing your circle of friends, but they are, in fact, not doing you any good at all, and you’re better off without them. Life on the other side is so much better!

  26. Brian Jordan says:

    I spy a typo:
    ” had won the “Best Science Film” at the International Christian Film Festival.”
    Shurly it should shay “Best Anti-Science Film”.

  27. AgentCormac says:

    @barriejohn
    Glad you escaped and glad you survived. I just regret you had to endure so many years on ‘the dark side’.

  28. barriejohn says:

    AC: It was a nightmare. Little did I realize what lay ahead when my sister and I first attended their Sunday School so innocently in 1958. I think I suffered because I was so honest; others, I definitely know, hide their true beliefs (which they may label “doubts”), or are just too weak to break away, so persist in a complete charade. Of course, I didn’t have a wife and children to consider as well!

  29. AgentCormac says:

    @barriejohn
    As a child, how could you have known? It is no coincidence that ‘the church’ puts so much effort into influencing children before they can think for themselves. Speaking of which, here’s a link to the NSS petition asking our wonderful new PM to rethink her policy on faith schools. Please sign it.
    http://www.secularism.org.uk/2016-changes-to-faith-based-admi.html

  30. Cali Ron says:

    RussellW :When you are raised and indoctrinated by your parents, friends and authority figures to believe what you can’t comprehend it’s very difficult to throw off the chains of oppression. Similar to Laura Roberts it was a class in High school called Logic and Clear Thinking that made me listen to the voice of doubt in my head and seriously question my believes. I tend to agree with her approach to changing minds. Telling someone they are a fool or stupid ends the conversation before it starts.

  31. Cali Ron says:

    MFR: I’m sorry you find me despicable and more dangerous than religious nutters . Perhaps your stereotyping.

  32. RussellW says:

    Cali Ron,

    Fair comment. My father was an atheist and my mother had a vague kind of religious belief and only attended church for the usual rites of passage. I was educated at a Presbyterian Grammar (high) school where Christian ideology was applied rather lightly.

    I was spared both domestic and educational indoctrination.