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?

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.

This is a 90-minutes documentary that examines and challenges religion. It covers an impressive amount, addressing Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Catholicism, without any of them being glossed over. It raises questions that have to be asked, and makes remarkable points. The aggressive and uncompromising way of more than one of the groups should not be ignored. Like The Enemies of Reason, this has disturbing material. This is put together of footage taken from the various areas(including famous sites) that writer Dawkins visited in making this and interviews with people from both sides, several of which are specifically known for their views on the subjects. This is more confrontational and impassioned than the later-produced, aforementioned piece, and this is sure to offend some. I don't think that is as much the intent as a side-effect... I would say that Richard means to provoke exploration, reflection, independent, free thought. I doubt he is particularly likely to go for shock value. The subject matter does perhaps make for more emotional responses, what with the deeply personal nature of it. Richard Dawkins asks great questions, and argues impeccably well. Not always equally respectful, but invariably eloquently and intelligently. I recommend this to any skeptic, and anyone in general who is willing to hear him out. 8/10

This documentary provides a great view at religion and its contradictory evilness. As we live in a world that's threatened by religious fanatics and almost all major conflicts are based on religion, shouldn't it be time we start questioning religion? Dawkins does question religion and everything else. And he continually stresses that as opposed to faith, science tries to discover the world and congratulates everyone who makes theories obsolete.There's a common word used against people like Dawkins - arrogance. But isn't arrogant the one who says he knows everything? Dawkins says he knows nothing but what the facts reveal him.Fear the one who offers all knowledge for he is lying.