gorf I find it strange that people like Richard Dawkins make documentaries and books about the evils of religion, when according to him, there's no such thing as evil, or good, or free will for that matter. But if there's no evil, why bother about terrorism and genital mutilation? If people have as much free will as a bag of sugar (as one atheist put it), religious believers, including atheists, just can't help it. Atheism undermines itself.Richard Dawkins is best known as the leader of the "Cult of Dawkins". A strange form of Darwinian religion made up by 30 or 50 white males between ages 25-55 who use "The God Delusion" as some kind of a Bible ("Dawkins says this, Dawkins says that"). According to one of the many Dawkinsian creation myths, little green men from outer space intelligently designed life on earth. According to another one, there are infinite universes, and infinite versions of yourself. In one of these universes, you have a green mustache. But the most popular myth is that life just decided to created itself. It makes even less sense than Scientology.Dawkins is also known for his now totally discredited theory about "the selfish gene", and a bunch of other pseudo-scientific books, including a children's book called "The Magic of Reality" which tells kids how meaningless everything really is. Because telling kids that there's a God is child abuse.He's a big supporter of eugenics, and has made some disturbing comments about "mild" sexual abuse and rape on both his website and on twitter. This caused some of his followers to run away, but the majority stayed with their beloved master. He probably gained some new fans from NAMBLA, though.The documentary (if it deserves to be called that) "The Root of all Evil?" Came out in 2006. It was very popular among teenagers who shared it with their friends by sites like YouTube. Suddenly, everyone knew about the angry Englishman. The point behind the documentary is to show how evil, stupid and primitive religious people are compared to enlightened atheists. Since Richard Dawkins is a coward, most of of the people he chose (or, his neurons "chose"...remember, kids, no free will in Darwinland) to interview were easy targets. He actually interviewed theologian Alister McGrath, but the interview ended up on the cutting room floor because it would have ruined a good propaganda movie.Dawkins would later debate John Lennox in front of a large audience. During the debate, it became apparent how weak and pathetic Dawkins' arguments really are. Watching Dawkins in a debate is a lot like watching Mister Burns trying to throw a baseball...funny and sad at the same time. Some years later he chickened out on a chance to debate William Lane Craig. Many of his fellow atheists admitted that it made him look like a wimp. Chick...uhm, Richard Dawkins claimed that he didn't want to debate Craig because of Craig's defense of infanticide in the Old Testament...which is ironic if you watch Dawkins' conversation with Peter "Let's Screw Animals" Singer, where Dawkins says he's a big fan of infanticide.Except for a few deluded fans in small, secular countries like Norway and Sweden, Richard Dawkins is no longer considered relevant. To say that you're still a "big fan of Richard Dawkins" will most likely ruin your chance at spreading your selfish genes. Most "serious" atheists now consider him to be a joke. Sometimes I wonder if Dawkins is trolling. In reality, he's probably a religious believer who's trying to show the world how incredibly stupid atheism is. I bet Dawkins has converted more people to Christianity than C.S Lewis. Maybe we should thank God for people like Richard Dawkins?

Sophia Park Film: The God Delusion Genre: Documentary Rating: 4/5 Director: Russell Barnes Writer: Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion is a critical documentary that addresses a very controversial topic, whether God is real or not. The main speaker and character in this documentary is Richard Dawkins. He is a scientist that believes that there is no actual proof of the supernatural and divine. He believes that mankind is about evolution and that brought us to be who we are today, however religious leaders or highly religious people believe that creationism is what made humans what we are today. One example when Richard Dawkins addresses the controversial issue that religious people tend to believe what people made up to make sense of the world by implying what the scripture wrote. The death of Mary in Christianity isn't actually written in the Bible, however the pope told the followers that her body shot up to heaven, and eventually people just considered it to be a fact. When interviewing religious leaders and people, one of the people I found the most shocking to hear was Yousef Al Khattab. Yousef used harsh and edgy words where he insulted atheists and straight out denied Dawkin's opinions. Near the end where he says that the atheists needed to "fix your society and fix your women and are letting the women dress like whores". I was really shocked that he had such strong views and opinions. Overall I thought that this movie really addressed the controversy in religion and evolution and I would give the rating a 4/5.

r-letkeman I watched this after watching Religulous and have to say I can't recommend it. It's a straight forward attack as preachy as the people he attacks. Both sides are arrogant and superior sounding to each other as they ask the other to "not be arrogant and superior sounding".The whole thing seemed an exercise of watching 6 year old kids fighting in a school yard. It was even ironic how Dawkins continuously pushed his faith like a preacher, demanding proof for everything which is a goal not a possibility. All the while forgetting that the basis of science is faith. We can't prove anything in science, all it does is help disprove things and we assume what's left, no matter how improbable is true or real or at least almost so.I also wish the language he used were less harsh and more objective. It could have a nice documentary instead of verbal porn.See Religulous instead. It's gentle and funny.BTW, my 6/10 means it has redeeming values, just barely. Watch it if you're really really bored.

siderite This is a show about nothing! :) Well, about how ridiculous it is to believe in a god that simply isn't there. Dawkings is clearly an anti-theist, not simply an atheist, being rather violent in his search for the supremacy of evidence based logic over dim witted religion.That is actually the problem with the documentary. The people interviewed on the religious side are simply too far gone to sound remotely lucid. Dawkings chose the people on their religious fervour, therefore they can only look ridiculous in a film based on logic.The arguments are solid though, no matter their aggressive delivery. One of the things I liked is the ending of the first part from where I quote: "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in, some of us just go one god further".By omitting the few good things about religion, Dawkings appears just a extremist as the religious fanatics that preach on about holy armies and the true god. Bottom line: if you are an atheist, there is nothing new in the film that you haven't already thought of yourself; if you believe in god, you will most likely feel attacked and dislike the film.