If an Anti-Atheist Story on Snopes Were Made Into a Film, It’d Be This One

Reader Nicola sends along this movie trailer for God’s Not Dead from Christian company Pure|Flix. It features a mean atheist professor (played by Kevin Sorbo, who clearly lost a bet) and a brave Christian student…

It just goes to show: Those urban legend emails your religious relatives forwarded you a decade ago can, in fact, be made into a stereotypical Christian film.

The company should offer free tickets to anyone who spots all the apologetic clichés.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Andrew L

    Please, someone, assure me no chalk was harmed in the filming of this movie. (Otherwise I might not be able to sleep tonight)

    p.s. Hemant, if I write a review of the movie, will you publish?

    • Timothy R Alexander

      I hope so. I would deffinatly read it.

      • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

        Much preferable to watching it.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      Oh yeah :)

  • Art_Vandelay

    In his defense, why would Hercules believe in Jesus?

    • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

      “I was the son of a god before it was cool!”

      • David Nieves

        My Math can beat up your science

        According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants
        of nature are so “finely-tuned,” and so many “coincidences” have
        occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have
        come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

        In fact, this “fine-tuning” is so pronounced, and the “coincidences”
        are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic
        Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence
        intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not
        accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the “fine-tuning” and conclude
        that the universe is “too contrived” to be a chance event.

        In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the
        greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which
        compel this conclusion.

        Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

        If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a
        little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron –
        then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely
        that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

        Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

        If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one
        direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and
        there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the
        other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon,
        no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

        Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

        “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a
        knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge,
        and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even
        slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance
        happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited
        to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up

        According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the
        universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called “The Big Bang.”
        At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed
        into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured
        inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are:
        hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.

        When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the
        “blast-furnaces” of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is
        very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity
        of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were
        numerous “fortunate” one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that
        purposeful “adjustments” had been made in the laws of physics and
        chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

        Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

        A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
        superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and
        biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
        nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence
        could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have
        been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce
        within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be
        surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding
        his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and

        Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning

        Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment’s most
        prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists,
        have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the
        fine-tuning. The August ’97 issue of “Science” (the most prestigious
        peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an
        article entitled “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Here is an excerpt:

        The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster
        organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result
        in planets and long-lived stars — also has led some scientists to
        speculate that some divine influence may be present.

        In his best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking
        (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon
        as “remarkable.”

        The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the
        constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make
        possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if
        the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different,
        stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they
        would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few
        ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow
        for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values
        would give rise to universes that, although they might be very
        beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.

        Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as
        possible evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the
        laws of science (by God)” (ibid. p. 125).

        Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The
        Science of Life” was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He
        adds the following examples:

        Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics
        (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing
        in the journal “Scientific American”, reflects on:

        how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial
        conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who
        could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of
        several physical quantities had slightly different values.

        Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be
        astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a
        beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001
        seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time
        before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected,
        exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did
        not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no
        nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and
        helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our
        well-tuned universe. He continues:

        One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The
        existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between
        different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120
        decimal places.

        This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

        000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,

        but instead:

        000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

        there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

        the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion
        and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly
        that no galaxies or stars could form.

        Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University
        of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with
        a simile:

        The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire
        universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other

        Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the
        University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe
        having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more

        namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to
        the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not
        possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary
        (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of
        123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion
        billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion
        billion zeros.)

        Penrose continues,

        Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on
        each separate neutron in the entire universe — and we could throw in
        all the other particles as well for good measure — we should fall far
        short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the
        universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that
        extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the
        superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which
        govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

        Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or
        infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning
        remains the same.

        It is appropriate to complete this section on “fine tuning” with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:

        To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly
        simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when
        we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so
        beautiful, we will all say to each other, “How could it have ever been

        • Geoffingeorgia

          Your long winded attempt to just overload the comments with something simply wordy doesn’t excuse it’s outright wrongheadedness or lack of fact and substance.
          Your argument starts on spurious ground and rambles in to nonsense before the first paragraph ends.

        • Deanjay1961

          First, show that the universal constants could be other than what they are. You’re using a thought-experiment as if it were evidence.

    • Raising_Rlyeh

      Nerd moment, but in H:TLJ and X:WP the christian god exists, though they don’t call him that, and in the christmas episode of hercules Iolas is driven by a vision to visit the manger.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        The shows were pretty much Anachronism Stew, with a healthy side of camp. They dabbled in a lot of different mythologies, and didn’t portray this or that god as the “right” one.

        • Raising_Rlyeh

          Somebody’s been reading tv tropes, but yeah both shows are so far out chronologically.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Yep. That place will change your life and your vocabulary in so. many. ways.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              If by that you mean that every time you close your browser, six months have passed, then yes, it definitely changes your life. :P

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                Wait — where did my night go?

        • Raising_Rlyeh

          It’s debatable if they did not portray a god as the right one. While they dabbled in mythology they had the christian god, or as they called it “the god of eli”, and that god was called the god of love and was above all other gods except for dahak.

          • Jeeshoo

            The god of love was able to use Xena to murder the Greek gods. That might show that he’s tougher, or it might show that Xena is. I recall when Xena became a demon, the archangel Michael admitted she was such a badass he wouldn’t be able to stop her from conquering heaven. And she reincarnates indefinitely, making her seemingly more immortal than the Greek gods.

            • Raising_Rlyeh

              But that ability was taken away from her when she almost killed michael and she had to get caligula to kill himself. You are correct about michael saying that about demon-xena.

              • Jeeshoo

                So she has an artificial limitation that prevents her from killing divine beings. It’s like a safety mechanism to protect them from her badassness. Still, my point was that perhaps the god of love was no more powerful than the Greek gods, he was just the only one brave enough to wield Xena like a sword.

      • Art_Vandelay

        Yeah…I have no idea what those things are.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess.

          • Art_Vandelay

            Ah! Never saw them. They might be onto something because Josephus wrote about Hercules too.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              *chuckle* I’ll take Herc over the Christian skydaddy, any day.

              • islandbrewer

                What if Mary was impregnated by Zeus instead of Yahweh? Would Jesus have wandered around the country cleaning the Augean stables and fighting monsters? The New Testament would be waaaaay more fun to read!

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  What if Mary was impregnated by Zeus instead of Yahweh?

                  Oddly, the whole thing would then become massively more plausible.

  • DougI

    Aaaaargh! My brain melted a little watching that. If The Onion did that video I wouldn’t have been surprised. Poor, poor Hercules, how could he be so desperate for a job?

    It’s an interesting look into the paranoia of fundies who think universities are merely Atheist recruiting centers and intellectuals and professors are angry people who seek to persecute Christians. Such warped thinking, I doubt they’ve ever stepped into a philosophy class.

  • OkieAtheist

    You see? Because of movies like this one, Atheists are portrayed as hateful people who are “angry” at god for {insert tragedy here}.

    As a child I was exposed to “movies” just like this one when i was made to go to church.

    Just as a personal project, I might just seek out some church that plays this. Won’t be hard. I’m in Oklahoma and it will be well advertised. Would be interesting to see if they have the same effect today that they did back then.

  • Jonas

    Whenever I see a Christian Movie commercial like this, I’m reminded of this line..

    “I just met a wonderful new man. He’s fictional but you can’t have everything.” – Purple Rose of Cairo.

  • LesterBallard

    Dean Cain is the one who really sells it; he was Superman.

    • Andrew B.

      Superman, Hercules, and…who’s the actor that played Thor? Does he make a cameo?

      • Nancy Shrew

        Chris Hemsworth. And no, he hasn’t reached sufficient has-been status yet.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Considering he has, at minimum, three to four more blockbuster movies coming over the next six or so years, he’s probably set for a while.

      • Mario Strada

        No, fortunately Chris Hemsworth is going to be on Ron Howard’s RUSH. A movie I will watch the moment it gets to theaters.

        He plays James Hunt, 1970 all around party boy and world champion race car driver, pegged against Nicky “The Crisp” Lauda. Also world champion race car driver, but buttoned up, conservative German instead of free wheeling Brit playboy.

        I was in High school when this story was in every Italian newspaper for months. I actually watched the incident live on TV and Lauda was a Ferrari driver, which made him as close to a deity as Italians get.

        RUSH is going to be awesome, at least for me. I love vintage Formula 1 and I love that era in particular.

        The time when “Sex was safe and motor racing was dangerous”.

  • KMR

    The acting at least in the trailer is a step up from the usual Christian fare (say Fireproof for example). It seems to be borrowing from so many clichés though. What a shame. How much you want to bet that the atheist professor accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior at the end? And cries a lot while doing it?

    • Travis Myers

      Yup. Also, the blonde chick is going to break up with the main character, but then she’ll sneak into the back of the room while he’s debating his professor and be so impressed by his brave defense of his faith that she gets back together with him while triumphant music plays in the background.

      • dawn

        Thank goodness we have KMR and Travis… saved 92 minutes wasted in my life. ;)

      • DougI

        I’m guessing the professor is so convinced by his arguments that he ends up accepting Christ too.

      • KMR

        And you know in this movie due to the B-rated but yet known actors, I think we might actually get a kiss. There won’t be any obvious exchange of saliva but lip contact yeah, I think we can look forward to that. I’m getting so excited!!!!!

        • allein

          You really should seek help with that porn addiction before it gets out of hand…

          • Human Person Junior, Jr.

            I’m sure he has it well in hand.

            • allein

              I very nearly spit toothpaste onto my computer at that…

            • rhodent

              Ladies and gentlemen, Human Person Junior, Jr. has just won the internets.

            • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

              Well done.

        • DougI

          I heard a rumor that there was some intense hand holding. As a devout, bible believing Christian parent of 12 children I am shocked by this display of perverse adultery and wonder why there isn’t, at least, a PG-13 rating.

          • Sheri

            SHAME on you for only having 12 children! You are a disgrace to God and His plan for the ultimate destruction of your uterus. You are obviously NOT a *true* Christian. Fetuses come first!!!

      • Pepe

        And there would be lot and lots of sex.

        Oh wait.

        • Artor

          Well, that’s when the masked slasher shows up to show that having sex is bad, right?

          • KMR

            No. In a Christian movie the unmarried people who had sex would suddenly realize that it jeopardizes their relationship with God in a non-specific and imprecise way. They would fall to their knees, tears streaming down their faces, possibly clasping hands in a contrite fashion and ask for forgiveness all while looking up at a 10 foot cross (unless in Brandon Miss and then it would be a 110 foot cross). Afterwards they would be very happy, decide to get married while remaining completely and totally abstinent (since it’s a movie. In real life we know that “totally” in so rare in the Christian world it might as well be classified as non-existant). Then the ending of the movie would be her walking down the aisle in a long, completely covered white dress with a lot of lace over the breasts while the last shot is of her estatic groom, the light of God (or a well placed spotlight) shining on his face.

            • Art_Vandelay

              Then six months later he comes home from work early to find her in their bed having a threesome with Hercules and Fat Superman.

              • KMR

                Yeah but that’s the parody the porn industry chooses to do.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  LOL. I never made the connection of acting ability and poor scripts between porn and Christian propaganda. Thanks. You have to wonder if somewhere there isn’t someone who works on both.

      • Reader

        and slow clap

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        I heard parable once: Man goes to priest. Says he’s depressed, life is
        harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in threatening world.

        Priest says, “Salvation is simple. Accept Jesus Christ into your heart. Go pray to Him. That will pick you up.”

        Man bursts into tears. “But Father,” he says, “I am Jesus Christ.”

        Good parable. Everybody ‘Amens’. Roll on organ music. Curtains.

  • Topher Kersting

    Sorbo has had three strokes (incidentally, probably caused when a chiropractor dislodged blood clots in his shoulder). From what I can tell, it was the recovery process from this event that led to him embracing Christianity. FWIW.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      He’s doing pretty well for a guy who’s had three strokes, though.

      • Terry Firma

        Indeed. Usually, it’s three strokes and you’re out.

        • Gus


    • Mario Strada

      He is probably going to have another stroke after he reads the reviews for this movie.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        No, he’s aware that he sucks. I don’t think he minds.

  • bradstephenson

    weapons grade face palm

  • Ben Porter

    Now maybe not the idea of jesus or the christian god, but philosophically there may be a god. I know no atheist who acts like that though. Especially to a student in a philosophy class who holds a different point of view. I do feel bad for the kid in that scenario though cause in philosophy one must be welling to debate the moral ramifications if a god exist. For a teacher of Philosophy to completely dismiss the debate that is what i find offensive in the movie. Not that he doesn’t believe but that he refuses to discuss it in a philosophy class.

    • Travis Myers

      “Not that he doesn’t believe but that he refuses to discuss it in a philosophy class.”

      The entire premise of the movie is that they discuss God’s existence in a philosophy class.

      • Ben Porter

        That’s not what i meant. If you watch it at the beginning the teacher straight up says there is no god. He says theirs no room for debate everyone must write “God Is Dead” a student says i don’t believe that the teacher more or less threatens to fail him. It than breaks down into the teacher allowing for a debate to take place. But the teacher in actuality does not want to even discuss the idea.

        What i am trying to point out is that this is a philosophy class. discussing the existence of god is not seperate from the subject. The teacher tells all the students his view that god does not exist. I agree with the teacher on this point, but what he does next i find offensive. That he tells the students its not up for debate.

        If such a key point is not up for debate the man has made a mockery of the class. He is not attempting to provide the kids with a full educational experience. That is what i find offensive. I should have been more clear. I apologize.

        • Travis Myers

          Fair enough. I was just giving you a hard time.

          • Ben Porter

            well i understood the criticism and was happy to address it.

        • pRinzler

          The whole point of any philosophy class is *exactly* the debate, and no mediocre professor would ever act like the one in the film. Caricature, strawman, and probably some other choice fallacies.

  • Joseph George

    Oh. . . how horrible to defend your hypothesis!

  • Rain

    Science supports God, teacher wants to fail the student but that really means he wants to fail god, teacher denies God even though teacher secretly knows God exists but won’t admit it. Yeah, bottom of the barrel creationism of the dumbest and the cheesiest hucksterest kind. I didn’t know there was still a market for the dumb stuff.

    • clever_sobriquet

      THere are still Christians out there. But that devil’s music played by those colored fellas is a bit troubling.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    God isn’t dead. God never was.

    • Mario Strada

      I didn’t even know he was sick. I heard he had a stuffy nose a few weeks ago and a bit of discomfort with the old sciatica, but dead? That was sudden.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Well, Sciatica does exist and does suck, so if God had it, then he must have existed and had leg pain. Guess I’m a theist now, fuck.

      • Katwise

        God snot?

        • God’s Starship

          God Snot Dead would be an awesome name for a punk band.

    • Fentwin

      God isn’t dead, he just smells funny (apologies to Zappa)

  • JC

    As a liberal atheist professor I find it amusing that they made the villain in this movie a philosophy professor. At many universities the theology program and philosophy program are part of the same department. Many religious “scholars” get their doctorates in philosophy because it’s viewed as being a more credible degree than one in theology. So philosophy professors are actually a bit more likely to be Christians, relative to those in other fields. On the other hand, the professors who are most likely to be atheists are those in the sciences, which is the content area where religion is least likely to be brought up in class by the professor. I think the screen writers were going through a bout of projection.

    • EllieMay

      I sort of watched a preview for this movie about a week ago and if I remember right, the professor was a Christian initially, but lost his wife and then lost his faith.

      And obviously the end of the movie is utterly predictable. Though I might actually watch it if the professor refused to revert. I would respect that.

      • LesterBallard

        Yep, cause that’s the only way anyone stops being a Christian.

        • ragarth

          No it’s not! I’m sure there’s a movie somewhere where the atheist professor lost his religion on account of blunt force trauma.

          • LesterBallard

            I read “No, it’s not” as Danny Devito in Cuckoo’s Nest playing cards with Nicholson and the others.

      • Nancy Shrew

        Oh, God. It’s like the end of Signs.

    • Art_Vandelay

      I thought I read somewhere that among professions, philosophy has even a higher % of atheists than science. Can’t seem to find the link though.

      • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

        Philosophy is the last refuge of the theist.

    • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

      Not in my experience. I have a Master’s Degree in Philosophy and almost all my professors were atheists. There were two who weren’t. One was a really liberal Episcopalian who acted like an atheist most of the time and the other was a non-denominational liberal Christian who had really weak arguments I destroyed in class to his embarrassment.

      • Heini Reinert

        Seconded. I have an MA in philosophy and very few of my professors were religious. Interestingly all of my non-believing professors would go out of their way to not let their own personal convictions bleed into their lecturing, while I found the religious professors to be completely unprofessional.

      • 3lemenope

        I had a rather different experience w/r/t professors’ religiosity in the Philosophy department. There were a smattering of what one could charitably call deists along with the usual atheists, but there was also a hard-core Catholic and the department chair was also pretty devoutly a protestant of some obscure flavor.

        Unlike Heini Reinert’s experience, I found both the theist and atheist professors exceptionally capable and discrete about their (non-)belief in a deity in the classroom context.

    • Jarosław Michalak

      According to PhiPapers Survey over 70% philosophers at major education institutions are atheists: http://philpapers.org/surveys/

      • JamesEmery

        That’s an interesting one, and possibly a typo. If you go to the results and choose ‘fine’ instead of ‘coarse’, it shows the complete opposite. Not sure which was right :/

        • Jarosław Michalak

          What link did you use? I see in coarse:
          Accept or lean toward: atheism
          678 / 931 (72.8%)
          Accept or lean toward: theism
          136 / 931 (14.6%)

          In fine:
          Accept: atheism
          576 / 931 (61.9%)
          Lean toward: atheism
          102 / 931 (11.0%)
          Accept: theism
          99 / 931 (10.6%)
          51 / 931 (5.5%)
          Lean toward: theism
          37 / 931 (4.0%)

          EDIT: The above results were for “faculty”. But for “all respondents” they are quite similar.

    • Tainda

      My philosophy professor was the one that introduced me to the vicious con artist that other people call Mother Teresa.

      I remember the first day of class he asked which of us were considered the “black sheep” of their family. Only two of us raised our hands. Surprising that we were the only two atheists (fake surprise)

    • Blacksheep

      Wow – that’s totally contrary to all of my (3 in total) philosophy professors, and totally contrary to the beliefs of my friends who majored or minored in philosophy. At school, all three professors used the existance of God as one of the main philosophical discussions – all strongly believing that God does not exist.

  • Gideon

    The “God on trial” angle reminds me of the later portions of Miracle on 34th Street. But in that movie the trial was about positively identifying Santa Claus.

    I’m curious whether the movie will try to argue why the arguments for a living god are only arguments for a Christian-flavored one. Too often, apologists talk as if there are precisely two possibilities: fundamentalist Christianity or atheism.

    • Timothy R Alexander

      Wasnt there some movie that came out about the same time where they put evolution on trial? I swear I saw it on one of those channels that only airs old movies from the days of my grandparents.

      • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

        Do you mean “Inherit the Wind”? It’s from 1960, but it’s about the Scopes Trial in 1925.

        • Timothy R Alexander

          Yeah, looks like thats it. I might have to sit down and watch it.

    • allein
  • Sneezeguard

    Ok, so in suspension of disbelief, the people who made this movie want us to assume a kid who is basically being threatened to be failed for being a Christian has no recourse with the school board, with various Christian organizations who would be willing to support his cause, or with various civil liberties organizations who would be willing to support his cause (they’re often just as mad about someone being mistreated for being Christian as they are for someone being mistreated for not being Christian you know.)

    And even in a world where the people making this movie have somehow made all these very unlikely leaps, they still cannot fathom an atheist villain with more power and authority than a college philosophy professor who just so happens to have the one course a student needs to pass a class.

    • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

      As soon as you said “in a world..” my brain immediately insisted on reading the rest of your comment in the voice of the movie trailer guy.

      • Gus

        They need that guy to voice over the trailer. Then it would at least be clear that it’s speculative fiction: “In a world where atheists dominate, one man dares to stand alone, backed only by 80% of Americans, his priest, his girlfriend, his family, all of his friends and associates, almost all of Congress, the President…. wait, are you sure this is the copy you want me to read?”

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Oh man, have you seen that guy’s rates, though? If they had hired him, the entire production budget of the movie would consisted of the tax deductions the producers got from donating all their Left Behind books to Goodwill.

          • MikeyM

            Also, that voiceover guy, Don LaFontaine, died in 2008..

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Jesus, it can’t have been THAT long since I read articles about him.

              *checks his ID* Holy crap I’m old.

    • Derrik Pates

      But… the ACLU hates Christians, and would never in a million years help one! Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly said so!

  • Mitch

    I would be interested in seeing the climactic scene of the movie, if only to hear the “arguments” that the student will use to prove god’s existence and (obviously) lead to his professor’s conversion to christianity.

    • “Rebecca”

      I suspect the climax will actually involve the professor breaking down in tears and admitting that he really just hated God all along and the student will reassure him that God loves him and has a plan for his life.

      • Mitch

        Also a very probable ending.

      • PoodleSheep

        Followed by a gay drunken orgy.

  • https://twitter.com/atheist_in_nc Heisenberg

    Holy shit, that’s laugh-out-loud bad.

  • fry

    2013 best cringe-comedy award sewn up.
    I’m totally atheist, but now believe absolutely in the curse of Superman.

    • The Other Weirdo

      The curse of Superman?

      • Willy Occam

        Google George Reeves and Christopher Reeve. It doesn’t end well for these two actors who portrayed Superman. Given the trajectory of his acting career, one can assume that Dean Cain hasn’t been able to shake the curse.

        • The Other Weirdo

          Oh, I suppose I know about that. I thought it referred to something in-universe.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          Or it could be that he’s a jerk (heard many stories), not that good an actor, and not all that good looking any more.

  • Timmah

    What happened to you to make you hate god so much Kevin Sorbo, WHAT TERRIBLE THING MADE YOU HATE HIM?

    Oh you spent 4 days sitting at a booth at San Diego Comic Con surrounded by unwashed nerds signing autographs and posing for pictures for money? Yeah that’ll fuckin do it alright.

    • http://mittenatheist.blogspot.com/ Kari Lynn

      Hey! Not all of us are unwashed! Some of want to keep our costumes nice and fresh! ;)

  • Dan Weeks

    “Science supports His existence…”

    What science where?

    “You’re unwilling to write ‘God is Dead,’ so you must be willing to argue the anti-thesis.”

    Not how it works. Any philosophy 101 student would know that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Furthermore, no true atheist believes God is dead. It’s like believing unicorns are dead. It’s a nonsensical statement.

    • Timothy R Alexander

      The Unicorns are alive! I see them on TV all the time. For I am….a BRONY!

    • Gus

      The only reason a philosophy professor would utter the phrase “God is dead” is if they were teaching Nietzsche. I don’t imagine the makers of this movie are going to spend any screen time, or even have the intellectual prowess to write a scene with the professor actually discussing Nietzsche and what that quote is about in context…

      • allein

        Context? What’s that?

        • Reddo

          It’s that magical thing that makes the horrible parts of the Bible look not bad.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            A lobotomy? Those aren’t magical unless a unicorn gives you one.

            • Nancy Shrew

              Man, now I’m reimagining the Frances Farmer biopic with unicorns.

  • Charles Chambers

    Ouch. That preview was painful to watch. I used to love that band back in the day.

  • diogeneslamp0

    This movie is to atheists what Nazi Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer was to Jews. Isn’t the script of this movie copied from the old Jack Chick creationist comic book “Big Daddy”, in which the handsome young Aryan creationist student totally outsmarts the ugly old angry Jewish atheist evolution professor? Everything’s the same except Sorbo looks Aryan too. That’s progress I guess.

    • Gus

      I do wonder who downvoted you. The difference, of course, is that Nazi propaganda films were better quality, more effective, and more widely seen than this ever will be. Otherwise I think you’re right.

      • Terry Firma

        That downvote was mine.

        I was born, raised, and educated in a country that neighbors Germany, where my parents and their generation were beaten and plundered and starved for five years, and our Jewish friends and fellow citizens rounded up and shipped off like cattle, never to be seen again.

        To my knowledge, atheists, like me, even in these exasperatingly Christian United States, have never come within a million miles of such treatment. And we never will. To compare the makers of a mildly dumb Christian movie to the depraved genocidal filth that gassed Jews by the millions might be amusing to some, but to me it is (a) pulling a Godwin, which is always facile and proof of a paucity of reason, and (b) astonishingly disrespectful to those who were actually persecuted and killed.

        Oh, and I forgot (c): profoundly annoying evidence that Western Christianity’s laughable and unattractive persecution fetish can be easily adopted by (some) atheists, with just as little justification. Pity.

        • Gus

          I see two sides to this. Everything you say is generally true, but on the other hand, not every comparison to something the Nazi’s did is false or, in my opinion, disrespectful. Godwin’s law is not a logical fallacy, it’s an internet joke. The point, I think, of the comment is that this is not a piece dedicated to promoting Christianity, but is a piece of propaganda attacking atheists based on creating a fictional representative of atheists that has all the evil stereotypes that have been applied to atheists. The Nazis are the preeminent example of that kind of propaganda, and the comparison, on that level, is apt.

          The difference of course is, in addition to the one’s I noted above, that the government isn’t promoting this and that it isn’t going to lead to widespread violence and discrimination against atheists in this country. Commenting that it’s the same technique that the Nazis used, however, isn’t wrong on its face. The Nazis did lots of things and used lots of techniques and stand as a marked example of why many of those techniques are wrong.

          And then there’s the entire movement of holocaust remembrance, memorial, museums, and the like that is founded on one basic principle: Never again.

          What does never again mean? Does it only apply to Jews? Only to mass government slaughter? Or ought it mean that we never again allow discrimination against anyone to even get a foothold? Or does it mean that we have to go to war every time some tinpot dictator kills some number of people? That latter is an interpretation I would strongly argue against, but I think it does mean that we should be vigilant against discrimination and prejudice and the techniques used to spread them, even if it is far removed from the holocaust.

        • diogeneslamp0

          Terry Firma’s despicable accusation was indefensible, on the basis of facts, so he resorts to 1. Laughable STRAW MAN attack and 2. An emotional, personal boo-hoo story about the country Terry Firma was born in (as if anybody cares where he’s fro, or as if that makes him less ignorant!)

          First, STRAW MAN: at no point did I, Diogenes, ever use the word “persecution”– oh no, “persecution” was Terry’s word, INVENTED BY HIM, because he pathetically could not use FACTS to defend his despicable and revolting accusations. I made not mention of GAS CHAMBERS, it was Terry Firma who brought up GAS CHAMBERS (!!), because his idiotic and despicable accusation could not be defended with facts. Second: Terry, no one gives a shit which country you grew up in, you’re pig-ignorant of history, including the history of the Third Reich, and you try to cover up and conceal your ignorance and misrepresentation of FACTS by appealing to EMOTION.

          I compared this Christian movie to PROPAGANDA, indeed a specific kind of propganda, NOT “PERSECUTION”– a word a did not use– It was Terry Firma who used words like “persecuted”, “gas”, and “genocidal” — I never compared this Christian movie to GAS CHAMBERS and Terry Firma is lying through his teeth about that. Disgusting! No, I compared this movie to a propaganda newspaper, Der Sturmer, of which the editor was the notorious Julius Streicher. This newspaper was infamous for being the least sophisticated form of propaganda– even Joseph Goebbels looked down on Streicher’s propaganda as unsophisticated. It’s most likely that Terry, being pig-ignorant of the history of the Third Reich, has never heard of any of this before– his problem, not mine.

          Here was my point, OBVIOUSLY: Streicher’s style in Der Sturmer (or Der Giftpilz) was to crudely combine all conceivable negative stereotypes of Jews into caricatures which, in combination, not only bore no resemblance to reality, but were also internally incoherent– not just not based on our real world, but so self-contradictory as to bear no resemblance to any possible world.

          So my point was not merely to accuse the Christian film under discussion of being “propaganda” in general, but to compare it to a particular type of propaganda. I was distinguishing this film from the propaganda of, say, Joseph Goebbels, because that’s a different type (pompous and pseudo-philosophical.)

          And Terry invokes an Oprah-style personal boo-hoo story about the country he grew up in! He can’t win on FACTS so he switches to boo-hoo EMOTION. Terry: no one cares what country you grew up in. Even if you grew up in Hitler’s bunker, you’re still ignorant of history.

          Terry Firma is himself “astonishingly disrespectful to those who were actually persecuted and killed”, not to mention being pig-ignorant of the history of the Third Reich as well as the history and mechanisms of propaganda.

          • diogeneslamp0

            Oh gee, I wonder who downvoted THAT one! Can’t imagine who!

            • 3lemenope

              That would be me. I found the random capitalization disturbing.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        Unfortunately there were some very talented artists and crafts people who bought into the nazi ideology.

    • guest

      I think that comparison is a bit extreme.

  • Crodley

    The main character’s name is Josh Wheaton? I wonder if it’s on purpose they used a very close resemblance to Joss Whedon? For those who don’t know him, Joss Whedon is an acclaimed director/creator of the Tv shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and the recent hit movie The Avengers. He’s a self avowed Atheist.


    • Jarosław Michalak

      I think they hint both at Joss Whedon and Wil Wheaton at the same time! Oh, how clever they are!

      • Gus

        Both atheists who have overlapping fan bases with Sorbo – coincidence?

    • TCC

      I wonder if it wasn’t a reference to Wheaton College, a fairly evangelical school.

    • LaurenceQuint

      Aw, crap. I came to this article late and just made the same post.

      Yeah, that seemed deeply bizarre. Maybe the writer of this is a big fan of, you know, actually good writing, but utterly ignorant of Whedon’s personal beliefs.

  • Robster

    Perhaps not dead, just very unwell. Really though, aren’t they preaching to the already deluded? What a waste of money, they could be feeding the poor or something equally useful.

    • Joshua Barrett

      yeah its pointless. I would guess at least locally 90% of believers think atheists are “people who hate god”. This does nothing to change that either way. Its just something to appeal to the bias these people have, we are the villain, so they can pat themselves on the back for being duped… opps I mean “believing” .

  • Terry Firma

    That student’s name?

    Albert Einstein.

    True story, bro.

    • Donalbain

      *punches Terry Firma in the face*

      God was busy protecting our troops, so he sent me.

      True story bro!

      • Matt D


      • Geoffingeorgia

        Seeing Donalbain being ass raped by an AIDS infected pit-bill on his cancer death bed

        Act of God, bro

  • Brian

    Would’ve been more entertaining if they cast Richard Dawkins as the professor. Not like Dawkins has never been in front of a camera before, and if a student is going to argue theology, might as well defend his beliefs against someone actually capable of challenging them.

    • Timothy R Alexander

      You know….I would go see it if they had gotten Dawkins.

  • http://oddboyout.blogspot.com/ oddboyout

    Is the name Josh Wheaton supposed to be a play on Joss Whedon?

  • Tel

    At the end of the trailer there’s this completely random car bit to make it look like an interesting movie…

  • Dirk

    Kevin Sorbo as MacBeth?
    Not quite Kevin Spacey as Richard II, but I’d shell out a few bucks to see that on stage.

    • The Other Weirdo

      He’d be like some Greek god or something.

    • Gus

      Yeah, I actually liked his Shakespeare delivery.

  • John Hunter

    fuck this I’m going to go watch Happy Feet now.

    • Gus

      Talking, singing, tap dancing penguins. It’s way more realistic.

  • Paula M Smolik

    I used to like the Newsboys. They sound like any other stupid non-rock band now. All soundboard, no musicianship.

  • The Other Weirdo

    What does Snopes have to do with this?

  • Lee Miller

    If this film saves just one athiest from the fires of hell it will have been worth every penny.

    • Jeff Levy

      If this film saves just one Christian from the brainwashing of religion it will have been worth every penny. God’s not dead it never existed in the first place well any god of any Religion IF there ever was a god(s)..

    • The Other Weirdo

      Did you even once give any thought to the morality of that assertion?

      • Lee Miller

        When you have The Truth™ you don’t need anything else.

        I clearly need to work on my sarcasm . . . people keep thinking I’m being serious.

        • curtcameron

          People are always misusing the phrase “Poe’s Law,” but this is exactly where it applies. Without some indicator that it’s a joke, it’s impossible to tell the difference between a parody of religion and the real thing.

          • Lee Miller

            I thought “athiest” was a dead giveaway.

            • curtcameron

              cf. Poe’s Law.

            • TCC

              Sadly, no, that’s exactly what you’d expect from the real article.

              • Bitter Lizard

                I just mentioned that I thought that’s what sold it too well as the genuine article. I think a rule of thumb when satirizing theist-speak is you either have to make the spelling as bad as humanly possible–like almost every word, in all caps–or you have to use perfect spelling and grammar to hint that it’s written by someone smart enough to know better. Just misspelling one or two words makes it too realistic.

            • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

              as in…athy, athier, athiest?

        • islandbrewer

          It’s ok, I have the same problem.

        • islandbrewer

          A good caveat may be “If this movie just turns one christian with cinematic standards to atheism it will be worth it.”

        • Bitter Lizard

          I think the misspelling of “atheist” sold it a little too well. Same thing happens to me here practically every time I post mock-theist sarcasm. I guess that’s why it’s called “Poe’s Law” and not “Poe’s Rule of Thumb”.

        • onamission5

          I retract my TD on your original comment. Well played!

    • Artor

      That’s a fairly accurate statement, actually. It’s an impossible task, since there is no hell, so the film is therefore NOT worth a single penny.

    • RobMcCune

      So then you believe it’s worth zero pennies?

    • Guest

      Good news! We’re all safe from the fires of hell already because hell is an imaginary place. You can stop worrying about that now.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      I think I’m somewhat ather, but I’m hardly the athiest. There has to be a better candidate for saving.

    • Edmond

      Why should atheists go to hell?

      • Edmond

        Never mind. Sarcasm detection delayed.

  • Steph

    This movie could be a good thing. Maybe it’ll wake some Christians up and they’ll realize what a farce their religion is. I’ll be encouraging my Christian husband to watch it…with me taking notes galore so we can address all the insane issues the movie brings up.

  • Gus

    Cheezeits, that’s awful. I almost want to see the whole thing just to see how awful it is. I wonder if the Christians in the audience would notice me sitting there drooling in slack jawed horror when they walk out past me at the end?

    • allein

      They’ll just think you’re overcome with the spirit.

      • Artor

        Aha! That explains the slack-jawed drooling among the Sunday crowd that steals all the parking spaces every weekend.

  • spiritbx

    This is ridiculous, being an atheist doesn’t mean we hate God, hating God is actually the exact opposite of atheism, you can’t hate something you don’t really think exists, its like hating Santa, know well that he isn’t real.

    Also this movie is kinda offensive, it wants to show that atheists are God haters, that are really just atheist because they are mad because something bad happened in their life.

    This is going to be more bad press for atheism, like we need more >.>

    • guest

      All publicity is good publicity. After terrorist attacks, the number of muslim converts actually increased, because some people, after hearing about muslims on the news, went to research them and found that they liked Islam (fuck knows why). Some people seeing this film may also try to find out more about atheists.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      Not only that, as a teacher I have no interest in humiliating a student or forcing them to change their beliefs about religion. Religion came up a lot in the last class I taught when it was a plot element (both Greek, Roman and Norse mythology as well as Christianity). Students needed to understand the context but I could care less if they believe in any of it so long as they understood the material presented. If I had such power that I could convince them of something life-changing I would use it to instill the importance of proper punctuation.

    • Sami

      I don’t understand this comment…I keep hearing people say “You can’t hate something you don’t believe exists”…but it makes NO sense! I hate Voldemort! Is he real? No. He’s a horrible person in the fictitious world of Harry Potter. This doesn’t mean I can’t hate him. I hate Rose Tyler from Doctor Who. Is she real? No, but she is whiny, selfish, and again, a HORRIBLE person in the science-fiction series, Doctor Who…I DO HATE GOD! He is a monster, and is essentially a worse version of Hitler invented by man before Hitler even existed! He isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean I can’t hate him.

  • Paul Reed

    Looking forward to the reviews.

    Any chance of real underdog story where the roles are reversed?

  • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

    Just sad.

  • Joshua Pierce

    i loved the line “Science supports his existence. You know the truth. So why do you hate him.” Um no. Try again crazy christian movie. Welcome to religious propaganda. Just keep making shit up to prove how true your book is.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      I love how Fundies hate science but like to use fake science as “evidence”.

  • Michaela Samuels

    Let’s just sum it up really quickly here:

    Atheists – hopeless.
    Christians – hopeful.

    Oh, and there is it. “Why do you hate god!!!!!?!?!???!??!?”

  • b s

    Can’t listen at work. Today’s WTF captionings are brought to you at 0:39

    “we tussling phosphate 150″

    and 0:45

    “think roman coliseum people cheering your bed”

  • God’s Starship

    God’s not dead. He’s just been in the bathroom a really long time.

    • http://shitmytoiletsays.blogspot.com/ Crud O’Matic



      *rimshot* *rimshot* *cymbal crash*

      Thank you. I’ll be here all week!

  • Grammer time.

    God’s not dead what? God’s not dead hamster? God’s not dead goldfish?

    • http://shitmytoiletsays.blogspot.com/ Crud O’Matic

      God’s – as in contraction of God & is.

  • Hat Stealer

    Remember, if you are a Christian you will be horribly horribly persecuted by everyone around you, because that’s what happens in the Godless States of America, a place where only a tiny tiny percentage of the population are actually Christians.

    Oh wait…

  • David Nieves

    for every billion anti quarks there was 1 extra quark, if it were not for this 1 extra quark the universe would have turned into radiation before it could even expand. Yes another lovely inconvienent and unlikely fact.

    If the rate of expansion were off by a couple percent in either direction, the universe could not exist, another lovely inconvienent and unlikely fact

    if the physics of nuclear fusion were at all different, there would be no fuel source for stars and no ability for heavy elements or planets to exist, another lovely inconvienent fact

    let’s not even get into what it took for the first single celled organism to come into existence just 500 million years from the first appearance of water.

    Science proves a creator much more so than it disproves a creator, however it does really hurt the case for a literal interpretation of the bible, nothing more.

    If you can accept religion can exist without a god, you have to accept a god can exist without religion. The laws of nature either require a supernatural creator which is an untestable hypothesis or an infinite amount of universes which is another untestable hypothesis, but we do know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents an infinite amount of expansions and contractions in this model of infinite. Atheists have to believe an alternate laws of nature could exist, yet no model exists that can show how the laws of nature could be different and a universe be able to exist.

    The more you know

    • Edmond

      And this explains why people who don’t believe in magic deserve to be tortured forever, HOW?

      The universe works the way it works. If it worked differently, it would be a different universe. Presumably, someone there would be trying to insist why THAT universe needed a god for it to work the way IT does. Nature runs on its own. The universe no more needs a creator than lightning bolts need a hurler.

      You seem to be arguing that “proof” of a god comes from the universe’s flawless, beautiful operation. But what about when there are flaws, or ugliness? What did this creator have in mind for Abigail and Brittany Hensel? What did he have in mind when he created the candiru? If we’re just tossing out the literal interpretation of the Bible, then what of homosexuals? What of souls? What of Heaven and Hell? All nonsense? Should we worship this god? Abhor him? Will he care either way?
      The god you’re arguing for tells us nothing. It gains us zero insight into the universe by presupposing him. He appears to have started the universe, and then left it running unattended. Why go so far with your presupposition? We have a universe, THAT is all that is proven so far. I see no giant tags hanging from the Earth reading “Made by Jehovah”. Why call this thing you describe a “god” at all? Just call it a “universe”, since that’s all we have so far to go on. If the universe IS expanding and contracting infinitely, there’s no telling what happens to the 2nd law of thermodynamics in between.
      Is the “god” you describe possible? Sure. Is there any way we can research him, or confirm him, or gain knowledge about our world from him? None that I can see. I therefore see no point in asserting that he’s even there.
      The less you assume.

      • E.H.

        Brittany and Abigail Hensel ugly? Don’t you know they were named the world’s sexiest twins?

      • eh

        Oh, I see from your other writings that you are gay, so perhaps you are not in the best position to judge Brittany and Abigail’s sexiness or lack of it. As it happens, I’m heterosexual but I still say they are attractive young women… though because I’d never be physically attracted to them maybe I’m not the best judge!

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor


      Some people believe that there are any number of other universes. Some of those may or may not have intelligent life. We just happen to be in the one where that is possible (because otherwise we would not be here). Nothing was created especially for us (how egotistical!) or to make life possible on this specific planet or at this specific time in the history of our universe. This is one place where life developed. Perhaps there are others. Perhaps not. it would be interesting to know, but alas at present we do not.

      Also, lack of understanding of how everything works is not proof that god did it. It just means we don’t know something. There are a lot of things we don’t know. Fewer than we didn’t know 1,000 years ago (although a great many of them our ancestors didn’t even know that they didn’t know!), but still a great many. Claiming to know things of which no one could be certain is not proof of better reasoning. It’s evidence of no reasoning at all.

  • David Nieves

    For those of you who come to the conclusion that Science disproves god, go read up and educate yourselves. I suggest Darwins black box by biochemist Micheal Behe, The Language of God by Former Director of the Human Genome Project, elite geneticist Francis Collins and double phd MIT trained planetary sciences and nuclear chemist Gerald Schroeders book genesis and the big bang. Also elite and world renowned Mathematician and Cosmologist George Ellis book the moral nature of the universe. These will be a good start for your hungry and curious minds.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      All heavily debunked. Learn to Google, Smugy.

  • David Nieves

    Hey Hemant, why does the character of God in the book of the bible disprove the existence of God? That would be like a fictional movie about an evil president persuading you that Obama is evil. You acknowledge there are many religions and many gods, why choose the one you dislike to base your judgement off of? Makes little sense. How about studying pre-Christianity philosophers and their views of a god of nature before he was humanized before the funny Greek speaking Jews of the day of Alexander

    • http://shitmytoiletsays.blogspot.com/ Crud O’Matic

      How about I don’t waste my time reading biased crap written about a deity no one can prove the existence of, and instead do something REAL with my life – instead of trying to convince myself that my imaginary friend is real.

      Besides, I’m not the one making the extraordinary positive claim – you are.

      So if you want to talk to me about god or his son, you’re going to have to prove that god exists first. Make sure your evidence is rock solid.

      Pro-tip: The bible is the claim – you can’t use the claim to prove the claim. So your evidence will have to come from the land of reality, not the realm of fantasy that exists in the pages of your “holy” bible.

  • David Nieves

    lol at Hemant deleting 2 of my posts, you just got called out Son. SHow your little groupies what you are made of and respond instead of deleting

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Hemant isn’t deleting your posts. Just reload the damn page.

      And then let us know how you know which god fine tuned the universe, and what fine tuned that god. Thanks.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      You should probably read up on how DISQUS works (and does not work) before spamming stupidly. Read up and educate yourself.

  • LaurenceQuint

    Superman and Hercules in the same movie? Man, this is gonna have some epic fight scenes!!

    • Sami

      Well, given the destruction levels from the new Supes, Herc is SCREWED! I mean, I know Cain was a competent Superman, but…they’re pretty set on that shitty new one, so…

  • LaurenceQuint

    By the way, did anyone notice that the Christian protagonist of this movie is named “Josh Wheaton”???

    I guess the writer of this film didn’t realize Whedon is an atheist.

    • SSSSSooooooo

      Whedon _and_ Wheaton, which just makes it more perplexing.

    • midnight rambler

      I’m guessing they did.

  • http://shitmytoiletsays.blogspot.com/ Crud O’Matic

    “God’s Not Dead” or “HALP! I’m being oppressed!”

    Typical crap – Christians are a righteous minority being brutally oppressed by the mean ol’ atheist majority, the protagonist’s beliefs are completely true and god magic can shoot out his ass when he calls on G-man.

    He’ll get the girl/conversion/dad’s love/new car at the end, and if he doesn’t convert the EVIL atheist professor, then the professor will be humiliated, his life will fall apart, and he’ll be found dead – naked & covered in cocaine in a ditch, with a ball gag in his mouth and a dildo in his ass.

    The cause of death will be SUPER AIDS.

    This is what happens without god. Fade to black. Roll credits.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      It’s too bad it never occurred to anyone involved with this film to research what Nietzsche actually meant by “Gott ist tot”.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    Wow. That was just one long strawman argument.

    And for all the whining one reads about with atheist and liberal professors abusing poor Christians and conservatives in the classroom, the only professors I’ve ever heard go on and about such topics were the Christians and one libertarian. In fact one poor professor in talking about human anatomy (an essential part of the study of vocal pedagogy) carefully avoided mentioning the word Evolution to avoid the shitstorm that would have resulted from the fundie students in the class. (In the past some students had complained to the dean. *facepalm*)

  • katiehippie

    That would be most painful to watch. I wouldn’t have liked it even when I was Christian. **cringe**

  • Sami

    What’s funniest to me, are most people who are planning on seeing this are Atheists(like myself) who want to go riff on it, like MST3K. The only thing is…we don’t want to pay for it… :/

  • Robert Padgett

    The famous mathematician Kurt Goedel provided a mathematical proof of God’s existence. http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801