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?

Lomedin Let's put the facts right: I am an antitheist. I consider somehow important to state that at the beginning of my review. The reason behind it, to put it simple, is that if everybody would let his/her belief dictate his/her actions, the world would be even a worse place. Alright, most people are like that anyway. Although, still, it's silly to follow any belief when humans -generally- can use common sense, and can acquire a great deal of knowledge if desired. I suppose belief and knowledge are contradictory terms. I'll try to simplify further: If it's OK to belief in god, it's also OK for me to belief that, instead of a brain, you have a worm in your head sitting at the controls. Or that anybody but me deserves the worst. For example. For A LOT of people, these beliefs are actual realities, no matter how absurd. Also, a faith is not needed for doing good deeds.As for the movie itself, there's not much to say about it, since it's self-explanatory. I wish Dawkins would have taken more time to explain why no form of belief whatsoever is appropriate, since there're many people who think that it's OK to worship as long as it's "harmless".I'd also like to say that science is, in many instances, as dangerous as religion. Let's not forget that many scientists BELIEVE that certain theories are actual truths, and that the creation of weapons, vivisection, environmental destruction and other forms of abhorrent acts are thought of or directly perpetrated by so-called scientists. Science always sold itself for the right price, and will also have an absurd excuse to justify the damage it causes. This is another point shared with religion.And so, even though it's outrageous to be wasting physical and brain resources (if it can be called that) believing that there're imaginary beings with divine powers floating around when that time could be used for learning practical knowledge to help save the Earth from human destruction, let's keep in mind that people of science are actually part of the problem too.Alas, the best one can do is get away from any religious or scientific dogma and simply live by taking common sense and reason as a guide for your actions.

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.

Christine Religious fanatics forget one thing. To question what they believe in. While I was watching this documentary it came screaming to me that not just the religious fanatics forget to question but also Richard Dawkins seems to forget to question the "evidence".The evidence we use to explain evolution for example is based on samples that we found. We are developing a theory based on these evidences. There are several weaknesses in this sentence already. It is the same with religion. if you just believe in this theories whether it is a religious theory or a scientific theory without questioning you become blinded. I agree with Dawkins who says that religion is blindingly wrong. But if we would raise our children in all our religions to become questioning persons. We don't have to kill ourselves. People have to believe in a reason for being. I do not agree with Dawkins whose ending words in this documentary were that the only way of really enjoying our live is not to believe that after death there is heaven or hell. I don't believe in hell anyway, but the pure thought that there is no real sense in my being and that after I die I go into the big not existence makes me panic. I rather believe that I have to learn some things in this life and that there is a reason for me being here, is more calming. I believe but I thought long and hard in what I believe and what I believe the priests or reverends or pastors tell me might be true and I will never become a fanatic because if you question your believes and especially question the people who supposedly have all the answer, then you might have a chance.There is a reason why Jesus did not agree with churches!