They don’t like it. But they love Jesus. At least, that’s the message I get from this interview with Dahmer and Chuck Colson’s fear of Richard “Maddog” Dawkins.
Are these the best celebrity endorsements of Christianity around?
Physicists, do you feel left out? Some nobody biologist from the Middle-of-Nowhere, Minnesota gets featured in a crackpot movie, but all you get is incoherent dumpster-diving schizophrenics making tirades about your work, and never anybody who has heard of venture capital? Rejoice! Your loons are getting more professional, too!
Feature Length Doc “Einstein Wrong” Looking for Executive Producer
Two Oscar Winning Distributors Wanting a Rough Cut
LONG BEACH, Calif, October 16, 2007 – Bootstrap Productions is currently
looking for an executive producer for it’s feature-length documentary
“Einstein Wrong – The Miracle Year” due out in 2008. The documentary is
about a suburban house wife who takes on the icon of 20th century physics
to see if in fact relativity is wrong. Shot over the past 3 years, the
film has two Oscar-winning distributors interested in the project. The
film is directed by David de Hilster who has invested 13 years studying
scientists and their efforts to show Einstein wrong. It is co-produced
and edited by Andrea Tucker, and Nick Tamburri and is due out in
2008. For more info, go to
http://investing.einsteinwrong.com.Contact:
David de Hilster
Long Beach, California
http://www.einsteinwrong.com
I hope they get that financial backing soon, because I think it would be perfect if this movie came out in February 2008, and went head-to-head with Expelled.
This could be almost as bad as that dreadful What the bleep do we know? movie. By the way, you can search all over their website, and you won’t find anything that explains what Einstein got wrong, how they figured it out, or what alternative they propose. The similarity to Intelligent Design creationism is perfect.
I’ve read a lot of wacky reviews of Dawkins’ book, but this is so absurd I nearly choked on my coke. How about a Freudian psychoanalysis of Dawkins?
The analysis? Dawkins’ atheism is grounded in a psychological murder of the God/Father…For Dawkins, the Oedipal counter-current manifests itself not in hearing divine voices but in an unquestioning commitment to a new paternal figure/institution, namely modern science (note the element of trust in science that is necessary to make this commitment, since science alone does not disprove God/murder the Father, only makes God’s existence/Father’s survival improbable). Science is Dawkin’s adoptive Father figure now that he has done away with the old one.
Dawkins needs to write more about squid to give these fellows more fun.
The godless seem to be making some people desperate and angry and worried — the stupid arguments have just been flooding in, and I’ve had to exercise some restraint, or every day would be a day for yet another long “religiots are nuts” post. So I’ve saved them up and will throw them out with fairly short commentary here. You’ll see what I mean: bad arguments and pious indignation seem to be the only fuel they’re running on right now.
When they say “Judeo-Christian”, they actually mean “Judeo–Christian,” and they actually hope it means “Jews-for-Jesus-Christian” someday.
It’s all good as long as it translates into more book sales to bigots.
Prison doesn’t seem to be helping Kent Hovind face the facts. He has these blog entries where he writes down these little imaginary conversations with god, who tells poor Kent how wonderful he is and how important his suffering is; in the latest, Hovind insists that he’s innocent — of course God agrees — but the real sign of growing insanity is that Satan is now having conversations with him, too.
You have also dared to try to take dinosaurs away from me. I have used dinosaurs for nearly 200 years to teach billions of people that the earth is billions of years old and that God’s Word is not true. Your seminar on dinosaurs strikes at the heart of my kingdom. I intend to destroy both your ministry and your reputation for good. Dinosaurs are especially effective for me to deceive children. You are taking children away from me, so I took yours away from you!
Strangely, instead of sowing doubt and feeding Hovind’s fears, even Satan is confirming his delusions. Funny how that works.
The latest round of indignant lawsuits by those irked at negative reviews: Left Behind Games isn’t too happy with their game’s reception in the blogosphere, so they’ve started sending out threats of lawsuits to silence the critics. One of the letters is online, another target is Daily Kos, and most amusingly of all, the CEO of the company tried to plead for Christian charity from on critic before deciding to wave a lawyer at him.
It’s an awfully silly strategy. Bloggers have loud mouths, but don’t have deep pockets. These attempts at legal harrassment are only going to win them negative publicity, and no money at all.
The best response so far (much better than mine) is Possum Momma’s. She points out that all the sins Siegel sees expressed in the godless seem to be just as prominent in contemporary Christians.
I really didn’t need to know about “Christian Domestic Discipline” or Christian porn.
You have to read this essay to believe it: Militant atheists are wrong. It’s a collection of what I call indignant pieties — “how dare atheists challenge my precious faith!” — and it’s also distilled, concentrated, essence of stupid, painful to read and even more agonizing to have to waste time arguing against. But then, it’s by Lee Siegel. Lee Siegel. There’s a man who has a lot of courage, exposing himself on the internet again. Siegel is the amazing hypocrite who denounced the ethics of the blogosphere, and then cobbled up a sock puppet ( remember “Sprezzatura”?) who went trolling around the blogosphere singing the praises of Lee Siegel. Fortunately, I don’t have to suffer over his nonsense too much — Melissa takes a bullet for the rest of us, stuffs Siegel’s brain in the toilet bowl, and flushes.
I do want to touch on one bizarre claim he makes while swirling down the drain, though.
I recently mentioned the way some serious theologians believe in demons and exorcisms. I can’t help it; I find these notions ridiculous to an extreme, and the absurdity of serious scholars blaming diseases on demonic possession in the 21st century is something one has to find laughable. I was being hard on Christianity, though. I left out an important exonerating factor for these people.
Some of them believe in angels, too.
Yes, I’m joking when I say this is an exonerating factor. This merely makes them even more silly. But no, you say, they can’t possibly argue for demons and angels being real agents in the natural world, can they? This must all be metaphorical, not literal. Judge for yourself.
Here’s a passage from the foreword to a 2002 book by Peter S. Williams, The Case for Angels. This is a book that argues for the literal reality of angels, and that they are important because “Angels (with a capital ‘A’, good angels) are worth studying because they are true (real), noble, right pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy. Fallen angels (demons are worth studying because they are real and because it behoves every army, including the army of Christ, to know its enemy.” The author of the foreword agrees. Can you guess who it is?
Peter Williams’ The Case for Angels is about…the theological rift between a Christian intelligentsia that increasingly regards angels only as figurative or literary devices, and the great mass of Christians who thankfully still regard them as real (a fact confirmed by popular polls, as Williams notes in this book). This rift was brought home to me at a conference I helped organize at Baylor University some years back. The conference was entitled ‘The Nature of Nature’ and focused on whether nature is self-contained or points beyond itself. The activity of angels in the world would clearly constitute on way nature points beyond itself.
