56 responses so far »

• Chris O'Connor : Jan 20, 2007 at 5:09 am

  If you’re a Dawkins fan you might enjoy commenting on our “The God Delusion” forum. I’m going to try to get Richard Dawkins for a live chat in mid March 2007, and I’m inviting you to attend. I had him for a chat back in 2003, when we read and discussed “Unweaving the Rainbow.”

• michael sharpe : Jan 21, 2007 at 9:40 am

  If you like this you might also like to know that Dawkins also recently toured the USA promoting his new book, The God Delusion, where he gave an excellent round of question and answer sessions, one of which was posted on youtube by the rational response squad. Makes for excellent viewing.

  Part one, where he discusses the book:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU

  Part two, questions and answers:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

  For more information on the tour, check out his tour diary:

  http://richarddawkins.net/tourJournal

• in absentia » Blog Archive » G’wan, give us a job then : Jan 21, 2007 at 10:59 am

  […] be full fried frogs - they even have live frogs for you to choose from.  After that, it’s Richard Dawkin’s Root of all Evil which is up on Google video.  Bet it won’t be as good as the episode of Spooks I watched […]

• Jeff Ventura : Jan 21, 2007 at 2:38 pm

  Thank you for these. I am a big Dawkins and Sam Harris fan, and I stumbled across these videos a month or two ago and found them fascinating. They’re long, yes, but very, very worth the time to watch.

  If you’re interested in more along the humanist/freethinking lines, you can check out my blog, as I have a number of posts about the topic.

  Thanks again for posting these videos.

• Geordie : Jan 21, 2007 at 4:50 pm

  Thanks very much for the links.

  Sam Harris & Dawkins sh0uld be required reading for all humans.

• paralleldivergence : Jan 21, 2007 at 8:33 pm

  Richard Dawkins has many things to say, all worth listening to. I too watched this a couple of months ago and read the God Delusion recently. Don’t close your mind to Dawkins. I have a few posts worth reading on the subject at http://paralleldivergence.com

• Adrian Hermann : Jan 21, 2007 at 9:36 pm

  Watch Documentaries Online

  Documentaries are sometimes very hard to come by, because they mostly run on TV and are often not sold on DVD. Streaming video can help:

  smashing telly! is a blog that collects full TV shows and documentaries which are available online. Themes are a…

• More Richard Dawkins « Books & Coffee : Jan 22, 2007 at 3:28 am

  […] Richard Dawkins Links to Richard Dawkins’ TV specials “The Root of All Evil” Published […]

• Loaded Monkeys : Jan 22, 2007 at 4:18 am

  While I’m not religious I have to say that I find Richard Dawkins to be a bit of a pessimistic nerd.

  I find his speculations of where we came from, like the religious kooks to be irrelevant to the more important question of where we are going.

• The root of all evil « chris lang : Jan 22, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  […] Smashing telly is showing a programme by Richard Dawkins on religion. It’s called “The root of all evil“. And this is my bookmark so that I can watch it when I’ve got a bit more time to […]

• Richard Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil?” « Anxious MoFo : Jan 22, 2007 at 8:57 pm

  […] 22nd, 2007 · No Comments Richard Dawkins’ documentary “Root of All Evil?” is available on Google Video. Another possible title for at least some of his documentary […]

• God 2.0 « La Belle Province : Jan 23, 2007 at 3:32 am

  […] the documentary The Root of All Evil? Richard Dawkins says We live in a time of lethal polarization, when the great religions are pushing […]

• astarwashere : Jan 23, 2007 at 1:56 pm

  I don’t find Dawkins to be pessimistic at all. His musings on life are tremendously optimistic. That this life is all we have, and to make the most of that time. To fly in the face of increasing evidence and uphold blind faith in religion sems far more pessimistic to me. He remarks that human intelligence is spectacularly miraculous. The improbability of life ever having happened is staggering. He’s a brilliant speaker as well.

  The claim that he’s a “nerd” is probably more telling of the claimer’s personality than that of Dawkins’s. Using the same scale I suppose one might say all scientists with PhD’s are nerds.

• Tim : Jan 23, 2007 at 2:42 pm

  I think it’s interesting that the more you listen to Dawkins, the more he seems firmly ensconced in an Atheist meme, similar (though contrary in goal) to the Christian meme that Sue Blackmore and others have analyzed. His world view has all the meme characteristics: payoff (intellectual superiority), retribution (”sheep-ness”), and even replication (see his links for “atheism support groups”). I find it just as unlikely for Dawkins to escape the mindset of that meme as for a fundamentalist Christian to abandon theirs.

• mikesterx : Jan 23, 2007 at 8:52 pm

  Thanks for posting these! As a Dawkins fan I know I’m going to enjoy watching this.

• Loaded Monkeys : Jan 25, 2007 at 4:12 am

  Good points Tim. Tim shows us you don’t have to be a nerd to be intellectual and logical.

• No need to put a Dr. prefix on my mailbox : Feb 8, 2007 at 3:48 pm

  It boils down to a question of whether you believe in an INFINITE truth or a finite one.

  Discouraging use of condoms in Africa could lead to a better long-term solution to the HIV problem. That is, defeating the virus in other ways than wrapping people up in latex. Maybe it’s worth the short-term cost.

  That way, human kind learns something from HIV. It leads people to THINK and master viruses, rather than just being ignorant and “disprove” everything.

  Tabula rasa.

• KMS : Feb 8, 2007 at 4:28 pm

  Re: “No need to put a Dr. prefix on my mailbox”

  “master viruses”?

  Those little blighters out-evolve their hosts’ defences or else they become extinct. How are we supposed to “master” them?

  Secondly, your willingness to sacrifice Africans “for the good of humanity” and “in the interests of a better long-term solution” is simply admirable. I’m sure the people dying out there, and the children they leave behind (or who are born infected), die graciously, in the comfort that they’re doing so for a good cause…..

• pointerouter : Feb 8, 2007 at 4:56 pm

  Geordie, that was such an ironic statement.

• The Carpanet » Ending Faith : Feb 8, 2007 at 6:47 pm

  […] just listened to the audio from Richard Dawkins “The Root of All Evil”. I think he makes the best case for the abolishing of Freedom of Religion, and in fact, abolishing […]

• Josh : Feb 8, 2007 at 10:55 pm

  I find Dawkins’ theories interesting, especially as a ‘conservative Christian.’ He makes some intriguing points, however, it would be more convincing if he wouldn’t point out the more extreme/irrational cases of the mainstream religions. Not all Christians agree with swaggart or the Catholics, and not all Muslims are trying to strap bombs to themselves and kill others. Still a good watch.

• synch : Feb 8, 2007 at 11:12 pm

  does he really think Ted Haggard is what he is because he is religious? tsk, tsk.

  while lower spheres of the religious world might work on the basis of faiths (I’m talking about regular jane/joe doe or the extremist he talks to later on), they’re actually herded by leaders who command and take advantage of them for the purpose of detaining profit and spreading consent. it’s sad that Dawkins does not observe that on this documentary, even though it is a good principle to try and persuade those lower spheres to more important issues and to think with their heads, because it’s the people who make the difference - even though they don’t really know what’s going on.

• Josiah : Feb 8, 2007 at 11:40 pm

  I guess he makes a good case for the religion of Atheism though… have absolute faith in science and there being nothing more than this life, and you can have fun without consequence. Sounds like a religious pitch to me, just one that our society is more predisposed towards

• dave : Feb 9, 2007 at 12:03 am

  Well, so many conflicts about this video. The first is the amount of half-truths concerning some of the facts brought up. When taking instances into perspective it’s easy to justify any argument. It’s an old bully tactic that doesn’t promote constructive discussion. I’m not going to argue out the points in detail because this is one of those discussions that can’t be spelled out in black and white. Secondly, doesn’t he understand the concept of social identity and how it impacts social issues. Instead of criticizing and offering no alternative, it leaves me with a sense that he’s nothing more than a nihilist that thinks he’s better than everyone else. Criticism is a part of the growth process but to lead people to have faith in an idea that not believing in religion means less violent behavior is simply irrational. Violence in religion is a minority and minorities will always exist as subcultures in every society. Third, I love science but I understand it’s limitations. I’m not going to allow those limitations to rule my life and my desire. I’m a human being and I’d like to feel that way when I can. Does denying base emotions mean that I’m supposed to be something other than what I already am, I doubt it. Fourth, while being objective is an aspect of the scientific method, there are other aspects involved as well, such as innovation. Thoughts don’t come out of no where now do they? Last but not least, enough with Creationism argument. It’s a stupid concept that no one believes and if they do, they deserve to believe in it. If they’re so stupid and we’re so smart then why should we fear them? Lame arguments and a waste of taxpayers time and money for all I care.

• deanimator : Feb 9, 2007 at 12:28 am

  Interestingly he uses exactly the same logic against the religious view as in fact is applicable to the so-called scientific view. He wastes no time in using very subjective and, for some, subtle language which is intended to support the view that those who believe in God have a weak mind…effectively showing that those who reject the God option must also be weak minded. It´s a very old trick.
  God is not God if he is ruled by such logic…sorry buddy…but your logic doesn´t work, not only because you have used subjective language…BIG mistake.
  Nevermind, it will be good enough for most who listen to you.

• Trust in God : Feb 9, 2007 at 2:07 am

  We as a species know very little about science. We barley have the inelegance to predict the weather or cure viruses. Consider pharmacy, the only way we know how to introduce a new drug is to test it on other humans. If we were smart enough we could run the new chemical through a computer and know the EXACT effects without trial. Science it’s self is a belief. Until someone creates an entire planet from nothing and populates it with humans from also nothing and you see it, it’s a belief in something that can not be proven. That is exactly what believing in God is. However, you and everyone else had better hope your right and their is no God and when you die that’s it. Terrible thought! Or, humm, if there is a God and Jesus really did die for our sins, when you die, you will live. That sounds like a better belief. One last thought, while, there is religious war, consider what life would be like without us. Who would you have to help the needy or sick.

• Lucy's Patella : Feb 9, 2007 at 3:32 am

  Surely the aim of science is to learn about this thing we call life, the universe and everything? Considering pharmacy, why do you describe us as not “smart” enough, rather than we as a race being not “knowledgeable” enough? How do we get that knowledge without the scientific exploration that so many people are doing? Sure, it would be fantastic if suddenly a God (whichever one happens to be real) pops up and points us to some document somewhere that explains the biosphere in all of its intricate details, from the highest level right down to individual species and then organs, tissues, cells, proteins, amino acids, molecules, atoms and whatever is smaller than them. But until that happens, then should the human race sit on its backside and wait, or should it get out and investigate the universe? Maybe that way we can, one day in the very distant future, find out if God exists and what happens after death, or even find a way of downloading our essences into other vessels so that we control what happens after death.

  I do not know if you are aware of a book and a theory called The Selfish Gene, but one of my favourite bits of it was when it was pointed out that true alturism is rare and do-gooders may well be doing it for self-gratification, or maybe they are giving that bit of fresh woolly mammoth to the less fortunate so that they can use that section of society to ensure their genetic lineage carries on mingled in there….. and i quote: “One last thought, while, there is religious war, consider what life would be like without us. Who would you have to help the needy or sick.”

• Wildness : Feb 9, 2007 at 5:58 am

  This sure seems to bring out some tension in those of a religious bent.
  What is wrong with simply looking at the universe with unbiased, inquisitive eyes?
  Why be ruled by simple emotions that you realize are fleeting mental constructs when you see them actualized in other people? These simple emotions are the elemental feelings that drive us to kill, treat others badly, make us want to live forever, etc., but they somehow can be easily manipulated by simple body chemistry on any given day. How does any `god’ enter into that kind of chemical soup? Why should you be judged, not by any number of heinous acts, but by the simple act of professing faith in some deity that you may not even know jack-doodly about? We commonly dismiss (sometimes) erratic behavior in (some) women due to it being `that time of the month’, ehhh?, why not just go ahead and step back to the darker ages and give credit to the demons for the ladies emotional foibles?
  Ridiculous!

  Dawkins lays it out very simply in the chapters concerning the history(s) of our cherished religions very well. I don’t think all the religious bent minds that have commented on this subject have come to grips with those chapters and arguments.
  All the counter arguments I’ve read here sound like `attack the messenger’ comments, and ignore the real issues of whether the fairy tale universe exists in reality, or why it really came to be.
  Don’t try to counter Dawkins claims with `he’s just making science like religion in reverse’, or he’s some kind of carrier of a `meme’ (in itself an unlikely and unprovable concept); tackle his points head on!

  I think this book, along with Sagans `The Demon Haunted World’, and any of a number of Shermers’ books should be required reading in our schools, in a course on real life and critical thinking. We’d all be better off without the fantasy worlds that our society so willingly and cheerfully embraces.
  There’s nothing to stop us `humanists’ from doing what we can to help us help others, BTW, we don’t need to feel that there’s any angels on our shoulders to do that.

  `God’, save us from your believers! haaahahhaaha!

  Sometimes I wonder if it will take subjugation and horrible slavery at the hands of some galaxy wandering aliens to shake it into the human collective understanding that we have no angels sitting on our shoulders. Even then, I’m sure, there would be masses of people worked to their deaths expecting redemption to come from the skies at any moment.
  This would only reflect the history of mankind and its’ desire for a heavenly saviour so far.

• Mark : Feb 9, 2007 at 6:25 am

  It seems to me that most of Dawkins’ points rest on the demeaning words he uses. There are many irrational beliefs held by militant religious factions and Catholics. So what? They do not define religion. He starts talking to a hypocrite preacher and acts like he is the standard. He treats people like they are idiots, and then wonders what they get all mad about. Science has done nothing to refute religion: just arrogant scientists.

  And on the topic of religion being bad: Jesus himself warns people of the danger of being religious. The Phariseas were the religious people of that time, the people he called a “brood of vipers”. This is not the only example. Ah, but Dawkins skirted this issue. He only showed one Christian Church in detail (not statistically significant, is it? makes you think of his argument against the healings) and made speculations on the rest. They’re out to make money apparently. I thought the money was used to give salaries to the church staff, mission trips to third world countries, and to build more churches. I even thought that churches actually wanted to help people. No, just get money.

• Mike : Feb 9, 2007 at 10:25 am

  Dawkins is to atheism what Fred Phelps is to Christianity.

  Except you can find vastly more atheists cheering on Dawkins than you can find Christians expressing any support for Phelps whatsoever.

• My Former Self » Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil : Feb 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm

  […] Link to Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil | smashingtelly - the best full length free tv progra… « Boston Bomb Scare? 31-1 never forget   […]

• Kognitiv vitenskap » Blog Archive » Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion - Documentary - Part 1 : Feb 9, 2007 at 5:15 pm

  […] Se resten av Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil… […]

• PH : Feb 10, 2007 at 7:25 am

  I do not believe that moral truth is a teapot. I see Dawkins’s intentionality, his compassion; I can sense that he wants to save us. When I reflect upon how much I love this life, I realize that I too want to try to make a difference.

  Yet why should anyone try to make a difference, if they truly believed themselves to be a mere ball of molecules amidst nothing more than a universe of empty space and other molecules? I can understand an atheism toward religion or even an utter denial of a god. But no matter how scientific and rational you are, there is an inexplicable phenomenon right in front of you — something that transcends any scientific explanation. It’s the “you” yourself. There’s no proof that anyone actually consciously experiences things the way you do. Maybe the people around you are all fleshy robots, props — full of electrical brain waves and pithy comments — yet soulless breathing human bodies. Yet you yourself are not a fleshy robot and you know that you are not. Sadly you can never prove that to anyone else; similarly science will never tell you whether I was ever human in the way that you are, or whether I was just a bunch of molecules aligned in such a way as to write this tonight. You’ll just have to take my word for it that there is an_I_ (AND I AM EARNEST AND I WANT LOVE, AND EXPLOSIVELY GOOD *SEX* GODAMMIT — I WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN AND I WANT THEM TO NOT REPEAT MY MISTAKES) and you’ll just have to take my word for it, that I am actually at the wheel and experiencing this existence as you are.

  Of course when I say that I see Dawkins’s intentionality and compassion, one could probably guess that I do believe Dawkins is actually experiencing a sensation of existence in the same way that I am. In fact I believe almost everyone is. I have no sound explanation for why I believe that, other than faith. But even if I didn’t have that faith, I would still have to grapple with the fact that science cannot explain my own sense of being. Science can never explain the “me.” Accepting that formed the beginnings of my own spirituality, one from which a faith in moral truth, and even a faith in a god, were eventually derived.

• mdj|dk # blog : Feb 13, 2007 at 11:21 pm

  […] have been watching a documentary by Dawkins about religion, and many of the extremists he interviews repeats the same thing, we would all be […]

• Kevin : Mar 5, 2007 at 7:23 pm

  The problem is not with faith, but with intolerance. There is no harm in believing something, as long as you have tolerance for other peoples views as well. Dawkins shows no respect for other peoples view, making him just as intolerant as the people he is interviewing!

• admin : Mar 5, 2007 at 8:08 pm

  You miss the point. These are issues which Dawkins answers directly.

  Dawkins’ claim that the problem is the opposite of what you say i.e. faith is the problem, is based upon the fact that faith is the opposite of reason and therefore is unreasonable.

  It is paradoxical to tolerate intolerance. Therefore, since most religions claim to be mutually exclusive of each other (e.g. you are not saved unless you accept Jesus ), they are by nature intolerant and impossible to respect or tolerate.

  Remember all Christians and Muslims are going to hell according to the tenets of the Viking, Mayan, Roman, Egyptian religions. I don’t think we should respect such crap from any party.

• bangkok photos : Jun 7, 2007 at 12:26 pm

  Are there any more of these videos? They are great!

• Zoruqvvv : Jul 1, 2007 at 9:06 am

  Greetings!..
  per3va2cho4k per3va2cho4k

• Zifejero : Jul 16, 2007 at 3:33 am

  digital camera wholesale distributor digital camera

• Cjmeqkkk : Jul 24, 2007 at 10:26 pm

  Thank you for your site.
  breast augmentation new york city breast augmentation new jersey

• Tjkaukkk : Jul 26, 2007 at 12:45 am

  breast augmentation southern california breast augmentation new jersey

• Pufaqkkk : Aug 5, 2007 at 11:50 pm

  broker canada forex online day forex inside trading

• Cjpyipop : Oct 10, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  diet diary freeware
  diet diary freeware

• Hylqepop : Oct 22, 2007 at 8:54 pm

  enterprise car rental montreal
  enterprise car rental montreal

• SiCAUuon : Oct 26, 2007 at 10:08 am

  plus size
  plus size

• Hjsyeuon : Nov 13, 2007 at 3:26 am

  a
  a

• Ljbiqggg : Nov 15, 2007 at 11:58 pm

  direct car rentals barbados
  direct car rentals barbados

• HAsyiuon : Nov 20, 2007 at 5:43 am

  Na2011b11backs
  n

• ZylOUuon : Nov 20, 2007 at 10:14 am

  Na2011b11backs
  k

• BUgiqkok : Dec 3, 2007 at 8:50 am

  fghjnffssefxc
  tsunami

• NysOeuon : Dec 6, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  i
  i

• VyDejata : Dec 13, 2007 at 2:35 pm

  veryg
  veryg

• Cyfijkok : Jan 8, 2008 at 8:45 am

  art
  art

• BqwjUkok : Jan 8, 2008 at 5:38 pm

  smell
  smell

• Eagles : Jan 9, 2008 at 2:07 am

  remove@sa-art.net

• Cypiqata : Apr 19, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  online
  online

Leave a Comment