1. Comment #67829 by Shuggy on September 5, 2007 at 12:59 am

Some at least of the clips available after the trailer has run are parodies - I think.

Other Comments by Shuggy

2. Comment #67848 by d4m14n on September 5, 2007 at 1:52 am

I suspect I'll be buying this, but where's the uncut Ted Haggard?

EDIT: just noticed it's NTSC format. If you're European, you might want to check your DVD player for compatibility.

Other Comments by d4m14n

3. Comment #67849 by albacore on September 5, 2007 at 2:00 am

The original Root of all evil" dvd advertised in the right-hand panel is also only available in NTSC. I know the Americans probably need them more but a Europe-friendly format should surely be available too.

Other Comments by albacore

4. Comment #67850 by CJ22 on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 am

It's NTSC, but region-free. Just check your DVD and/or TV is capable of duel-format (most modern machines will be).

Other Comments by CJ22

5. Comment #67851 by admin on September 5, 2007 at 2:08 am

For legal reasons, we weren't allowed to use the Ted Haggard footage. Sorry about that. Even without this, the interviews on this set are really great. I especially enjoy the Ian McEwan and Jill Mytton segments.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

6. Comment #67853 by davorg on September 5, 2007 at 2:18 am

Please consider releasing your DVDs in PAL format as well. We're not all Americans :)

Other Comments by davorg

7. Comment #67855 by admin on September 5, 2007 at 2:28 am

If you check the documentation for your PAL DVD player, it most likely plays NTSC DVDs as well. If your PAL DVD player does not support NTSC (some older PAL players may not), all computer DVD players can handle both NTSC and PAL DVDs.

Other Comments by admin

8. Comment #67859 by davorg on September 5, 2007 at 2:37 am

I know that my DVD player doesn't play NTSC disks. There's an upgrade procedure, but it costs £30 and I haven't got round to it yet as I haven't needed it.

Is there some reason why it's hard for you to release these disks in both formats?

Other Comments by davorg

9. Comment #67860 by davorg on September 5, 2007 at 2:42 am

Ignore me. I'm talking nonsense. My DVD player _does_ play NTSC DVDs. It's non-region 2 DVDs it can't play until I apply the hack. And that's not a problem with your DVDs - as they're multi-region.

Sorry for the confusion.

I'd still be interested to know why you can't produce both formats though.

Other Comments by davorg

10. Comment #67861 by mdowe on September 5, 2007 at 2:52 am

Re: Comment #67851 by admin (Josh)

For legal reasons, we weren't allowed to use the Ted Haggard footage

The fact that you could not use the footage is in itself rather interesting. Can you elaborate on the reason? (Or can you not elaborate for legal reasons...).

Other Comments by mdowe

11. Comment #67876 by tieInterceptor on September 5, 2007 at 3:57 am

yeah, can you elaborate as much as you are allowed as why the full interview with Mr Haggard is off limits?

I'm really curious,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y

I still laugh at this farce in utube

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

12. Comment #67891 by MaxieZ on September 5, 2007 at 4:35 am

I really want more Yusef Calcuta (sp?) (Joseph Cohen). Mr. "I hate atheists"

Other Comments by MaxieZ

13. Comment #67893 by ATH1 on September 5, 2007 at 4:38 am

Oh, it just gets better!
What's the music in the background to the trailer?- it's nice & 'upbeat' :)

Keep up the good work RDF!

Other Comments by ATH1

14. Comment #67895 by automath on September 5, 2007 at 4:51 am

For legal reasons, we weren't allowed to use the Ted Haggard footage.

Well there's a surprise :)

Other Comments by automath

15. Comment #67900 by fergusg on September 5, 2007 at 5:09 am

Just in case you didn't realise (I almost didn't!) - this DVD doesn't contain the original series, just the extended interviews.

Other Comments by fergusg

16. Comment #67906 by Jonathan Dore on September 5, 2007 at 5:29 am

Most DVD players are capable of playing DVDs from anywhere -- they're simply disabled from doing so before being shipped. It's easy to re-enable them, and it doesn't cost any money or involve doing anything technical to the machine itself: you just have to input a code of a few digits using your remote control, and you only have to do it once.

Go to www.videohelp.com/dvdhacks, type the name of your DVD make and model into the search box, and if there's a code available to unlock your player, someone will probably have posted it. If you input the "region free" code (rather than just changing it from one region to another), your player will automatically load and play discs from any region, so you don't have to change it again or input any further code. Just sit back and watch DVDs from all over the world!

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

17. Comment #67907 by plastictowel on September 5, 2007 at 5:30 am

I noticed on the google video version of ROAE Haggard pulls up in a truck and kicks Dawkins off the property. However when I purchased the ROAE DvD this footage was omitted. How is only a portion of the interview legal, but all this other footage not? Or is even that asking too much?

Other Comments by plastictowel

18. Comment #67916 by Cregaune on September 5, 2007 at 6:45 am

I'm sure Mr Dawkins has got more than a few pennies to rub together without having to stoop to the flogging of second rate DVDs? I've already paid him his royalty fees when I handed over my money for The God Delusion and I'm sure he got paid handsomely by Channel 4 for the original series of the 'Root of All Evil'. How much of that was donated to the foundation?

So, can you please send me a link to download this DVD without charge?

Thanks a lot.

Other Comments by Cregaune

19. Comment #67924 by pewkatchoo on September 5, 2007 at 7:16 am

d4m14n
"where's the uncut Ted Haggard?" In some rentboy allegedly.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

20. Comment #67931 by mdowe on September 5, 2007 at 7:52 am

18. Comment #67916 by Cregaune

I'm sure Mr Dawkins has got more than a few pennies ...

I'm sure Prof. Dawkins is beyond the need to make money at this point, but I'm guessing he wasn't the only person involved with the production. I'll go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that there might be other people involved that *do* need their paychecks!

Other Comments by mdowe

21. Comment #67936 by Tintern on September 5, 2007 at 8:32 am

Perhaps Ted Haggard could agree to the interviews being used in return for some royalties, as he and his wife desperately need the money to go back to college. It's a win win situation!

Other Comments by Tintern

22. Comment #67941 by DarwinsPitbull on September 5, 2007 at 9:28 am

Why does it even matter if Dawkins has been paid plenty for his series and book, why do you think he should give it to you for free because you bought the book? In that case, Bill Gates should give me the new version of windows for free since I have windows xp and Audi should give me a new car because I have already paid for one of there cars.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

23. Comment #67944 by d4m14n on September 5, 2007 at 9:36 am

The proceeds go to the RDF, not RD's pockets. What's the fuss?

Other Comments by d4m14n

24. Comment #67945 by Cregaune on September 5, 2007 at 10:02 am

Which is better for the public good........that this kind of material is put into the public domain or that the RDF lines its coffers?

Also, "...ALL proceeds go to the RDF" would seem to indicate that Channel 4 (and/or the production company) is getting no revenue from this DVD. If they were prepared to release the footage free gratis then I don't think it's too much to ask that RD releases it in the same spirit.

Every day under the 'news' section we get lots of links to YouTube video that's been released into the public domain (e.g. the recent interview of Christopher Hitchens on CSPAN). I find it at least interesting that RD doesn't seem to share the same ideals.

I know I'm in danger of qualifying as a 'troll' here but I genuinely think there's a point to answer.

Other Comments by Cregaune

25. Comment #67946 by admin on September 5, 2007 at 10:15 am

Cregaune,
A fee was paid by us to IWC to obtain and use the raw tapes. As for the other videos you are referring to on youtube, these are NOT public domain, and very frequently DO get pulled down if spotted by the copyright holders.

We are offering two of the interviews free on the website (see the article above), so please enjoy these if you don't want to pay for the DVD.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

26. Comment #67967 by 1town on September 5, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I wanted to see more of that jew-turned-muslim, he scared the shit out of me :p

Other Comments by 1town

27. Comment #67973 by +++eshu+++ on September 5, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Bad cover design, would prefer to own a nice box set with sweet typography and cover art, its the big deciding factor for me in spending ca$h. Otherwise i just wait until i can download something. Lots of designers would do this for free, you should ask for submissions in the future. Sorry Josh, who designed the cover, built this website and can probably just delete my comments ;)

Other Comments by +++eshu+++

28. Comment #67979 by steveroot on September 5, 2007 at 1:59 pm

4. Comment #67850 by CJ22 on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 am

...Just check your DVD and/or TV is capable of duel-format (most modern machines will be).

I love a good fight! Swords or pistols at 20 paces? :-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

29. Comment #68012 by Tack on September 5, 2007 at 3:41 pm

I'm quite disappointed to hear we won't be able to see more of Haggard's arrogant inanity. Nevertheless my copy's on order. :)

Other Comments by Tack

30. Comment #68034 by ClosetRebel on September 5, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Is this DVD available in English subtitles or Closed Captioned for the Deaf?

Other Comments by ClosetRebel

31. Comment #68037 by windfall on September 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Wow, has anybody seen THIS?!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dQ5KJ8rgA&mode=related&search=

(Ted Haggard admits he bought Meth from gay prostitute)

Talk about bizarre!

Other Comments by windfall

32. Comment #68044 by drbreakfast on September 5, 2007 at 7:54 pm

31. Comment #68037 by windfall on September 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Wow, has anybody seen THIS?!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dQ5KJ8rgA&mode=related&search=

(Ted Haggard admits he bought Meth from gay prostitute)

Talk about bizarre!
-------------------------------------------

Very interesting clip. To me Haggard's story doesn't add up. He buys meth from a gay male prostitute whom his "hotel" referred him to for a "massage."? He buys it because he was "tempted" but throws it out. Let me try to flesh this story out according to TH:

Haggards in a hotel room and thinks, "Gee, spreading the Word of Christ, our Lord and Savior is hard work, I need a massage. I'll ask at the front desk."

TH: "Hello my Brother in Christ. This is Mr. Haggard."

Front Desk Clerk: "Yes, Mr. Haggard, how may I help you."

TH: "I need a referral for a massage and no, I am a man of Christ, no so-called happy ending for me. Can you refer someone."

Front Desk Clerk: "Why yes, here's the name and number..."

1/2 hour later in Haggard's room:

Gay Prostitute (GP): "So what can I do for you?" (winking).
TH: "Yes, my brother in Christ. I need a massage... but that's all. No funny stuff."

GP: "OK, I'm no comedian, but if you change your mind, I'll let my tongue tell you some jokes in a very special way. And by the way, I can sell you some crystal meth if you want."

TH: "What's that?"

GP: "Makes you feel REAL good."

TH: "I'll think about it..." TH gets a massage (no sex, but perhaps it's how one defines sex??) and then days later he buys the meth?

Does anyone really believe TH's story? Well, maybe his followers will believe it; after all they believe that the Bible is literally true. If you believe that, Ted's story makes perfect sense.

Truly amazing...

Other Comments by drbreakfast

33. Comment #68045 by steveroot on September 5, 2007 at 8:06 pm

31. Comment #68037 by windfall on September 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Wow, has anybody seen THIS?!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dQ5KJ8rgA&mode=related&search=

(Ted Haggard admits he bought Meth from gay prostitute)

I like the body language: when asked point-blank if he did certain things, he says "no" and starts shaking his head but the motion morphs into a nod!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

34. Comment #68077 by Jopses on September 6, 2007 at 4:10 am

Here's some surprising stuff I found on YouTube: Truth about Islam from an ex-Muslim lady.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0

Other Comments by Jopses

35. Comment #68117 by Abdi Sanati on September 6, 2007 at 7:21 am

Is this DVD available in the UK too? The price is in US dollars.

Other Comments by Abdi Sanati

36. Comment #68139 by matt_shute-07 on September 6, 2007 at 8:28 am

I've just finished watching the Alister McGrath interview, and I found it very illuminating. Richard Dawkins was far more convincing than McGrath, I found, and its a shame some of this exchange didn't make it into the final cut of the Root of all Evil. I particularly enjoyed the final exchange, in which McGrath challenges Dawkins about why he gets angry about religion. The reply from Dawkins sums up nicely the reasons for anti-theism.

Other Comments by matt_shute-07

37. Comment #68161 by Series of Tubes on September 6, 2007 at 9:15 am

I've also just watched the McGrath interview. It's fascinating - at right around the 50 minute mark, you can actually see his head (metaphorically) explode, as Dawkins pins him down and tries to force him to give a straight answer on the question of whether or not God intervenes directly in the world. The look of sudden panic in McGrath's eyes is amusing, as is his attempt to weasel out of answering by looking away to the production crew and telling them he's already covered that, even though he very clearly hasn't, which they point out. His subsequent stumbling, freaked-out attempt to provide a straight answer to a simple question... and total inability to do so... is yet another highly convincing argument in favour of the nonexistence of God. Dawkins' bemused reflection that they're not going to get any further on that point is also fun. I am, however, impressed by McGrath's apparent immunity to the ravages of cognitive dissonance. Classic stuff.

Other Comments by Series of Tubes

38. Comment #68299 by Teratornis on September 6, 2007 at 5:05 pm

The McGrath interview was interesting indeed. I particularly liked the discussion of tragedies, both natural and anthropogenic, but I think the real issue is not why an alleged God "allows" tragedies to occur. Theists can trot out all sorts of rationalizations about that. The real question, to my mind, is why God does not warn people about tragedies before they occur.

Consider: God would not have needed to work any dramatic miracles to thwart the 9/11 terrorists, nor to have spared the 200 Peruvians who died when their church collapsed on them during the recent earthquake. Even if these tragedies had gone through as scheduled (assuming an omniscient God schedules such things), all God had to do to spare lives was to tell the potential victims to get out of the way. As humans, we cannot really think yet about stopping an earthquake entirely, we can merely hope to avoid the buildings that collapse and so on, but stopping the terrorists is something even a child could have done, by telling the security staff who waved the terrorists through the check-in to give them a bit more scrutiny.

The question of why God refuses to warn victims of impending disasters is an important one, from a mechanistic and a moral standpoint.

As a mechanistic question, this goes directly to the basis for theistic claims about the supernatural: theists claim to know God exists because God told them personally. I.e., the theist claims that God communicates with people today, in some direct internal manner. This generally comes out as the trump card in debates after a theist loses all the rational, evidentiary arguments - some version of "I know it's true because God told me." If we accept that premise, that God is already sending messages to people, revealing deep truths that go beyond what humans could normally sense, then we need theists to explain God's troubling communication lapses at critical times. We are not asking God to do anything he isn't already allegedly doing, so the question is really not about whether an alternative, earthquake-free world could exist (as McGrath went off about). The question is why a supposedly communicative God clams up when it matters, or its corollary: if you can't trust God to tell you when to step outside a building that isn't up to earthquake code, how can you trust anything you believe God tells you? Could you ever again trust a human who had such information, and held it back at the critical time?

The second question is a moral question. Suppose a human has both advance knowledge of some impending disaster and an easy way to warn the victims, yet deliberately refuses to do so. In the case of an impending criminal act, a person who could report it in advance, yet refuses to report it, could be charged with a crime. Most of us would agree that keeping mum while victims blunder to their doom would be an egregiously immoral, spiteful act. Yet this is what the supposedly sinless God does every day, by not picking up the phone and telling the police where all the murderers at large are hiding, and so on. In the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami, thousands of lives could have been saved if people had walked a short distance inland from the shore in the moments before the waves struck. There was, in fact, some anecdote of a family on holiday at one of the seaside resorts, and one of the children recalled hearing in school that when you see the ocean recede from the beach, you should run for high ground. She shouted a warning, people ran, and a number of lives were saved when the waves came crashing in a few moments later.

Why didn't God do for the other victims what a child did in that instance? It is peculiar that tragedies tend to cause people to turn to religions. This would be like people turning to a knowledgeable yet spiteful person who refused to warn them to get out of the way. This massive double standard, by the way, puts the lie to the spurious claim of theists that you must invoke a God to have absolute morality. Theists have to admit that God routinely refrains from fulfilling what would be for humans a moral obligation to warn victims of impending disasters, to report crimes they observe to the police, and so on. What would be a sin of omission for a human, a dereliction of duty, is perfectly fine for God. Therefore, absolute morality does not exist even if we invoke the standard version of God. Any divinely-ordained moral code must be relative, in that the definition of "sin" is relative to the entity in question. This follows in any case from the need for that which enforces a law to be above it (just as we observe police cruisers violating traffic laws as a matter of course).

Theists have a built-in advantage when excusing God from responsibility for tragedies. As mortal humans, we know tragedies occur frequently, and we are generally powerless to prevent most of them. Thus we don't expect that there should be an interventionist God who would give us a tragedy-free world (although for an all-powerful God that would be simple).

But we do expect that people who know a tragedy is coming should warn us about it. I think we should stop giving theists a free pass on that one. Why doesn't God warn the victims of the impending tsunami or earthquake to step out of the way? Why is it necessary for humans to rely on science to give us tsunami-warning networks, predictions of where and when the hurricanes will strike land, and so on? Why is God actually less useful than a meteorologist, when a storm is brewing? Incidentally, humans would be arguably much better off investing their resources in warning technology than in building fabulous houses of worship which get destroyed in natural disasters just like hotels and casinos and all the other works of man.

Other Comments by Teratornis

39. Comment #68318 by Lionspoint on September 6, 2007 at 7:51 pm

When I saw that "The Root of All Evil" series was going to be presented on DVD I thought, "Where is my debit card?" Of course knowing how things work, I decided to check to make sure the Ted F…Haggard interview was going to be on it. And sure enough it wasn't. After that I read the postings because I knew that many people like me would be outraged… or at least upset. Sure enough there were several posts that made this a clearly confounding decision.

After all, would you pay to watch a movie named "Jaws" that omitted the Carcharodon carcharias? You could include some Oceanic Whitetips or Bulls and that would be good, but you need a Great White to put the holy in the shit.

I will, sadly, be refraining from purchasing this version of "The Root of All Evil". And I really wanted to buy it, not only because even without the Haggard interview it is good, but also because I have seen and heard enough about Dr Richard Dawkins to have a strong opinion that he is a good man and deserving of our respect and happily given donations. The fact remains, of course, that there is some reason why the Haggard interview was omitted and the "Admin" guy has not, as of yet, elaborated on the reason. This must be fully made clear…and soon.
Finally I have no desire to assert a 'you versus me' mentality because I believe that the human species is one: That we all, regardless of nationality or anything else, are brothers and sisters. In light of that wishful notion it must be understood that while America, United States, lacks complete freedom (nor should it) to its citizens, we still enjoy a very profound liberty unknown to much of the Earth. It certainly isn't total, but close. However, even Great Britain is not yet worthy of being known that it allows its people with freedom we on the other side of the Atlantic have (and squander). The fact remains, however, that there is some serious censorship going on here that should NOT be allowed, regardless of nationality. This is not some trivial matter that should go unnoticed. This is very important! Anyone who doesn't see it that way, let your voice be heard. I for one am going to let this ride out for a few weeks and see what happens. In the meantime, could the "Admin" guy give the full details as to why the Haggard interview was censored? I look forward to hearing from you. God bless you all…until hell, that is.
Lionspoint

Other Comments by Lionspoint

40. Comment #68338 by alovrin on September 6, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I cant remember if Philosopher Colin McGinn was interviewed by RD in Root of all Evil?
He was in Jonathan Millar's programme on Atheism.
Anyway he has a blog its interesting reading.
http://www.colinmcginnblog.com/index.php

Other Comments by alovrin

41. Comment #68344 by admin on September 6, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Lionspoint,

What part of "We were not allowed to have the Haggard footage" doesn't make sense? IWC wouldn't give it to us. And we state very clearly that THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM. This is a collection of uncut interviews filmed for Root of All Evil? in their extended form.

Josh Timonen

Other Comments by admin

42. Comment #68601 by Lionspoint on September 7, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Dear Josh,

Sorry if I came off as rude. It was not my intent to upset you. I can see your point in regards to the "Admin" guy thing. That was uncalled for.

I do not have a difficult time understanding the fact that you were not given permission to include the Ted Haggard interview. The difficult time I have understanding is why it was not included. Now I have fully read and understand your response, that IWC denied its inclusion. Even though I have no idea who IWC is, then perhaps my question should have been, "Why did IWC censor the Ted Haggard interview?" I ask only because I, like other anti-censor people, would like to know who at IWC is afraid of letting the truth get out. And also, what does the acronym IWC stand for?

Once again I apologize for upsetting you. And thanks for your work on this site.

Doug Burgeson
Santa Clarita, CA

PS If the Ted Haggard interview is available on the soon-to-be-released original program then I will gladly stop my ranting. I just want to show my biblical friends what a complete ass Ted is.

Other Comments by Lionspoint

43. Comment #68778 by admin on September 8, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Lionspoint,

IWC is the company that created ROAE. I believe they had a lawsuit threat from Haggard before, and are just protecting themselves. I know that Haggard was a popular piece of ROAE, but aside from the entertainment value, I don't think there is much to be learned from any 'uncut' footage with him. At this point he has been exposed as a hypocrite, and is now completely marginalized. On the other hand, extended interviews with people like Alister McGrath, Richard Harries, Michael Bray and the Hell House pastor can help expose the more common tendencies of the religious mind. Plus, I don't think there was very much 'extra' footage of Haggard, since he DID run Richard off the property! Also, the interviews with non-religious people like Jill Mytton and Ian McEwan are VERY interesting, and I enjoy these the most. Watching these interviews feels more like being a lucky fly on the wall, listening to a well thought out, high-level conversation. I had hoped we'd get some extra Haggard footage, simply to quell the obvious desire for it, even if it wasn't very substantial. But once I did get a chance to watch all of the other interviews in their entirety, I realized where the real value was: Not in the crazies and the extremists, but in the details of the extended, more courteous discussions.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

44. Comment #69324 by EastCoastAtheist on September 10, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Some people seem to be complaining about the fact that the interviews with Ted Haggard and Yousef Al-Khattab did not make it on this DVD (apparently for legal reasons). While I can sympathize (they would have been my first picks!), I also think that this DVD set is excellent without them.

Jill Mytton and Ian McEwan both provide intelligent conversation and excellent insight. As the first two interviews on the disc, they are your last breath before plunging into the depths of irrationality. I am especially thankful to Ian McEwan for addressing the myth that rational people are cold and unfeeling. He reminds "spiritual" people that atheists experience love, awe, wonder, and inspiration. We just don't mix it up with anything supernatural.

Richard Harries comes across as a genuinely nice and intelligent man. In fact, he seems so reasonable, that you start to wonder why he's a Christian at all (something Prof. Dawkins actually asks him). I suppose that's exactly why he is a bit frustrating to listen to!

After Harries, you really get into the interviews with people that Dawkins is at odds with. The interview with Alister McGrath is interesting, though I don't know how Dawkins manages to keep from getting overly exasperated. McGrath tends to answer most of the questions like this (I'll paraphrase): 'I think what I'd want to say is that I don't ask that question.' Or 'Christians don't ask that question.' or 'Theologians don't ask that question.' Well, McGrath, Dawkins IS asking these questions, so how about some straight answers!

"What Christianity is saying is that there seems to be something wrong with human nature."
-Alister McGrath

Watch as Rabbi Gluck (does the name remind anyone else of George Carlin as Cardinal Glick?) displays his complete misunderstanding of science. He may have been kidding about the "Jewish gene" (I hope), but why does he keep talking about the "scientific tradition"? (I've noticed religious people tend to try to understand Atheism in religious terms. Sometimes they even go as far as calling Atheism a religion or a belief system.) He says that Judaism changes over time, but then resists the idea of future changes. Then he criticizes scientists for changing their minds.

Listen to Adrian Hawkes explain his understanding of morality and then marvel at the fact that he's an educator. It goes something like this: We all have an inner light that God put in us. This is what guides us morally. Dawkins starts to talk about empathy and innate morality, but Hawkes immediately disagrees. He tells Dawkins to look at the world around us, and see all the bad things that people do. There is obviously no such innate sense of morality; you need Christianity! ...despite the fact that we ALL have an inner light...that guides us...morally...hmmm. We seem to be going in circles. Where is that universal inner light when people are doing these bad things?

It's fun to watch McGrath, Gluck, and Hawkes back themselves into corners, but their arguments are as tame as they are irrational. Representing the religious crazies on this DVD are Michael Bray and Keenan Roberts. As disappointed as some people may be about the lack of an uncut Haggard interview, these two interviews should satisfy!

Michael Bray makes me nervous. He seems to think that we need to get Mosaic Law into our law books. He is also (famously) extremely anti-abortion. But watch as Bray fails to answer Dawkins' simple questions about the very subject that he has been obsessed with for so long. Bray says that human life (meaning an individual soul) begins at fertilization. As soon as Dawkins starts to ask about identical twins and natural abortions, Bray's argument falls apart. Watch the DVD to find out what silly questions Bray has for Atheists.

Keenan Roberts was, I think, the craziest one on the whole disc. It looked to me like he was really genuinely angry with Dawkins (especially when phrases like "child abuse" came up). You start to wonder if he would have gone Haggard, if his cast hadn't been sitting right there. He's very good at the "it's what I believe because it's what I believe because it's what I believe..." argument, and he flat out refused to answer many of Dawkins' questions.

Regarding Christianity:
"It's not about being a better person. It's not about being a good person."
-Keenan Roberts

Overall, this DVD set was fascinating, funny, and a little scary. I hope a similar uncut interview set comes out for "The Enemies of Reason."

Buy it. Watch it. Share it. Thank Richard Dawkins (and the rest of the RDF) for it!

Other Comments by EastCoastAtheist