The God Illusion - Part 1
 
 
Studio: JazzX
 
Review Count: 67
Average Rating: 4.36 stars
Genre: Comedy
Length: 12 minutes 59 seconds
 
Posted on: June 1, 2007
 
 
Film Description
Dr. Richard Lawkins is proud to announce the release of his new documentary, "The God Illusion - Root of all Ills?" "Part I - Unintelligent Design"

In this episode, he visits the Grand Canyon and Liberty University, the Gabon jungle and Arizona desert. All in an effort to show that natural causes and not unproven deities are responsible for the creation of life.
He locks horns with the late Jerry Falwell (in his final TV interview) and questions the validity of his Liberty University and the age of the allosaur bones on display there.


About the filmmaker:

Richard Lawkins was born in Libreville, Gabon, on September 27th 1947 but moved to England at the age of 3. Educated at St. Mark???s Catholic School for Boys (Buckinghamshire), he quickly took an interest in nature, and at the age of only 17 was given entry into Cambridge University after taking early A-level exams in Biology, Chemistry, History, English Literature and Latin.

He renounced his Catholic faith immediately upon arrival at Cambridge, claiming famously to a room-mate that ???there???s nothing like a strong dose of science to put things in perspective!???

He completed his 4-year course in zoology in just 3 years, achieving a First Class with Honours degree. He spent the 4th year travelling the world studying hard for his postgraduate thesis on ???embryonic evolutionary states??? which won him the coveted ???Michael Stubbs Research Award??? (MSRA) when the thesis was published 3 years later.

A further 4 years of research into ???Genetic Symbiology??? gained him his Doctorate and he was duly employed by Cambridge University as a full-time lecturer.

But that wasn???t enough for Lawkins, as he confessed to Stephen Hawking in a debate at the Sir Isaac Newton Institute in 1975, ???nobody listens to a scientist ??? we???re so up our own ******!??? He set about re-making his thesis as a popular science book which evolved into perhaps his most famous work to date, ???The Greedy Gene???. Hawking also went on to attempt to communicate to the layman his complex scientific theories ??? the most famous book being ???A Brief History of Time???. Arguably, Lawkins could therefore be considered the father of the popularisation of modern science.

Four more books followed up until 1982, ???The Cosmic Shell???, ???The Evolution of Ideas and Ideology???, ???The Deaf Deity??? (his first overtly anti-religious book), and ???The Memes to an End???.

1984 saw a return to Cambridge where he became Natural History Lecturer-in-Residence at the appropriately named Darwin College.

The BBC gave Lawkins free license to make a TV programme in 1986 for the popular ???Horizon??? series of scientific documentaries. He chose to use this as a platform to set the record straight on the misunderstood aspects of his first book, ???The Greedy Gene???, which many now believe unintendedly led to Thatcherism and Reaganomics gaining popular acceptance. His argument in the programme (entitled ???Nasty Guys Finish Last???) was that there are many ways for an organism/gene to be greedy ??? and that altruism has proven to be one of the most effective of all. ???I???m greedy for kisses from my wife - but I better be nice to her first!??? briefly entered the British popular culture lexicon between 1986 and early 1987.

In 1990, he presented the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures ??? where he told an audience of mainly children, in relatively simple terms, his views on matters of religion, science and the importance of evolution, using many innovative ???experiments???. The five lectures were collectively titled ???Grow Up! You???re in the Universe Now!??? All were aired live on BBC 2 in Christmas week of that year.

Five more books were published between 1993 and 2002 - ???The Living Rocket Fuel???, ???Creationism (is) For Dummies???, ???The Idiot???s Book Club???, ???Dinosaurs ??? How They Lived??? (children???s book) and ???The Memetic Virus???

In 2003 Lawkins received the inaugural ???Lance Holmes Award for the Public Education of Science??? from Nottingham University, followed in 2004 by the ???Allan Dellar Popular Science Literature Award??? for his work on ???The Forefather???s Story??? (2003).

In 2005, due to the rise of religious fundamentalism around the globe, often at the expense of science and reason, Lawkins began work on a new book which will be named ???The God Illusion??? upon completion next year. He already describes it as ???the most important book I???ve ever written.???

Needless to say, when we heard about this, we approached Dr. Lawkins and asked him if he would like to turn his research into a documentary. He agreed, and work was begun on a series of programmes in May 2006.

This episode, ???The God Illusion ??? Root of all Ills? Part 1: Unintelligent Design??? is aired both on the TMO network in normal quality, and on-demand in HD-SHR.

According to government sources, Lawkins is alleged to be receiving a knighthood next year ??? a first, considering that he would be receiving it from the head of the Church of England (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). It would be the first time any outspokenly vehement anti-religionist has received such an honour from such a high level religious leader. Asked whether he would accept the honour, Lawkins jokes ?????? well it beats a Fatwa!???

Chillingly, Lawkins has already been sentenced to death for blasphemy by no fewer than 14 Islamic factions, mainly centred in the Middle East, including the Islamic Republic of Iran where anyone caught in possession of a Lawkins book faces hanging. In the USA, two extremist Christian groups have offered large rewards for anyone who assassinates ???Satan???s messenger???.

Unperturbed, ???The God Illusion??? involved many visits to the USA where the battle between religion and reason is being played out in science classrooms across the land. Indeed, not one American TV network has dared to commit to showing a single minute of ???The God Illusion ??? Root of all Ills???? (at time of writing) for fear of upsetting the religious majority.

Next year, Lawkins will promote his new book with an exhaustive tour of the USA, giving lectures at bookstores as well as in the more familiar environment of university lecture halls.

Dr. Lawkins has been married and divorced three times, he is currently rumoured to be engaged to ex-???Doctor Who??? assistant Janet Fielding (???Teagan??? between 1981-84). He has one daughter, Lorna, by his second wife.


???The God Illusion ??? Root of all Ills???? is to be broadcast in four self-contained parts entitled:

Part 1: Unintelligent Design
Part 2: The Morality of Faith
Part 3: The Virus of Ignorance
Part 4: The Purpose of Life


Credits - Part 1:

Written and Narrated by Richard Lawkins

Assistant to Dr. Lawkins ??? JazzX
Assistant to Dr. Falwell ??? AnotherNewDawn

Music composed and performed by JazzX
Sound Engineering ??? JXR (JazzX Research)
Sound Effects ??? www.MediaCollege.com

Sets, Props and Animations ??? Fraasmovies, Bongoman, Daninsky, SBHedges, KirinRiotCrash, Monkeybiz

Overlays and Backdrops ??? Creative Commons and Public Domain

Produced and Directed by JazzX

Made entirely using Advanced Progressive Shooting Technique (APST, Dylen 2006/JXR 2007)
Synchronised using Export Shaving Techniqe (EST, JXR 2006)

Running time: 12:59

BBFC rating: PG (Parental Guidance) for mild insults, graphic animal violence and religiously sensitive material

JXTV is a subsidiary of JazzX Productions


Here is the link to the SuperHiRes version -
http://www.tmo-hi-res.com/TMOinGloriousHighResolution/GodIllusion/GodIllusion.html
 
Featured Reviews
- Trashman

lol but George Bush IS a monkey!(I've seen many a website that tells me this haha)
;-)

You know,I laugh at religion,and people who defend it.I find it incredible that in this day and age,with all the educational tools available,all the evidence...that seemingly intelligent people still prefer to think faith is a better answer.
The problem is that people are sheep.They like to follow.Most people want a simple answer,and they don't want to think.
Religion was born from ignorance as far as I'm concerned.Yes they didn't know better then,but now we should.

One would think that as society progresses,so does our understanding of ourselves and everything around us...but this is not the case for the masses.
Why?
Because religions are like cults.People are brainwashed from an early age,and even if they aren't fanatical about their beliefs,they still believe it.If you get told something often enough by many people and from many different sources,eventually it becomes pseudo-fact.Fortunately many use their powers of reason to break the shackles of religious dogma which has been crammed into their brain....and then they can TRULY say "Hallelujah I have seen the light".
Honestly,I prefer to believe in something whereby I can use my powers of reason to decide...doesn't it make more sense to believe in something that is explained with observation and calculation?
Yes,science is an ongoing investigation through learning,so sometimes things aren't fully explained,or there are dead-end answers,but slowly and surely more answers are revealed.
You can't use observation and calculation with religion.It's based purely on faith.There is no proof.Oh I keep hearing the proof is in the bible.What proof?It is a book written by men,like any other book.The difference being that nothing of what is said therein can be proven,except for a few historical blurbs of some people and events.But mostly it's mumbo-jumbo-bunk.The bible is practically undecipherable...that is why there are countless religions based on the same book,and all these religions believe they are right and the others are wrong.It's a joke really.
How is any rational person supposed to decide what religion to pick as the "right" one,let alone which version of that religion when there are so many??Ohhh no,if I pick this one,then those guys say I will go to hell,but if I pick this other one then that religion says I will go to hell....and on and on it goes.
Tell you what.I wash my hands of ALL religion.I grew up in a religious family too,but was smart enough to throw it aside at a young age.
MANY of the world's problems today are caused by religion...in fact many throughout history.But I don't blame any one religion more than any other...they are all the same to me:
Wrong.

Anybody who says that both sides should be represented here is wrong too,because you cannot prove in any way anything with any religion.And religion has so many sides that they couldn't possibly be represented anyways...

I was told by someone once that no matter how hard I try,I cannot prove there isn't a god...I replied that no matter how hard you try you cannot prove there is one.
Which one of us is the more rational one?Think about it people.
Observation and calculation...and reason.

Good movie.Gets one to think.
I could have done without the chickens and apes(those aren't monkeys haha)but I can see how you used them to make a point.
My way of saying what I think is a little crazier than your way,but I think maybe we subscribe to the same paper...I'm the funny papers and you're the business section lol
Sorry about the rambling,but I'd better stop here because I could go on for hours lol:-)

Posted on August 28, 2007
- trewill7

Absolutely brilliant film you've constructed hear, Jazz. I, myself am a free-thinker, believing that religion, much like government, is only a form of control, but i will not get into such things in this review. Instead, let's focus on the technical aspects.

Everything that makes movies great, rather it be Machinima or Hollywood, is present in this visual and verbal masterpiece. I truthfully feel that you did NOT attempt to press your beliefs on others, you merely shared them. Your writing is to be envied, as is your direction. Your VO talent is through the roof, as is A_N_D's, but of course, you guys already know that. The editing ws top-notch, and the free-cam was on-point.

You truly know how to lure people in Jazz, your smooth and clear vocals only made this product more enjoyable.

It will be bookmarked.

Fantastic work!

-tre

Posted on July 25, 2007
- George_Locust

This was awsome! The content aside(for now) your free cam and editing are the best. Super, in fact!
Now as for he content, I have allways agreed more with science than faith, so I enjoyed this very much. I have read the bible and I think I could argue the creation point better than the guy in your movie does.
For example, I can explain Genesis in science terms. I believe the origional word used(in the hebrew origional bible) for day, was "yom" or something like that, and that can mean longer periods than a day. Could even mean a millenia.
So it could be said that God made everything in 6 millenia. Also, if you remember that the bible was written by Moses,(was many authors, but lets pretend) and he saw it in a vision, then all of Genesis happens from the point of view of someone standing on the Earth seeing millenia go by very quickly. So when Genesis says "Let there be light" represents the overcast that was the sky at the time finaly thined enough for the sun to lighten things(still cant see the sun) if you were standing on the surface(wasnt really a surface, was all water). Then it says "Divide the waters from the waters" this is moses seeing the overcast lift, and now between the clouds(water)and sea(water) there is a sky(firmament).
Then it says "let the water gather in one place and let the dry land appear"
This is moses seeing the catalysm that caused the rising of Pangea, the super continent. Then it says "let the Earth bring forth grass" this is vegetation. Plants started out in the sea, and slowly moved to the land via mosses and alge. Plants were first. Then it says "let there be lights in the firmament" now finnally enough millenia has gone by for the earth to age a bit and the overcast is gone enough for moses to see the sun and moon for the first time in his vision. Then it says "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above" animals started out in the water as well, and evolved into amphibeans that came on land,and that evolved into reptiles, more importantly, repiles very much like birds and closely related to "fowl" so it could be argued that dinosaurs are indeed mentioned in the bible. Then it mentions cattle. This is moses seeing the age of mammals come into being. Then moses sees in his vision, man, evolve into the master of his environment(civilization) which, by definition means to farm, as oppose to hunt and gather.
So it can be argued that the bible is very scientific. I for one have come to the conclusion that its just a matter of faith, either you have it, or you dont.
Personaly, I cant believe in anything that insults my inteligence. A man cant walk on water, its called boyancy, and you can read about it in a science book.

Great movie!

Posted on June 19, 2007
- qtigger

When I was a little boy, I attended a Catholic School. I remember asking one of the Nuns about dinosaurs one morning just before the start of class. She immediately pulled me into the classroom and struck the back of my hand with a ruler several times. She said it was blasphemy to question God. I remember thinking to myself, �??Then why did he give me a brain that works?�?? I was about 7 years old at the time.

Since then, I�??ve questioned everything about religion. Perhaps I was inspired by Sister Mary Shutyourmouth or just natural curiosity. I do not subscribe to any organized religion at this point in my life but I do have a belief in a God. Call me crazy because my head says one thing and my heart says another. To me, faith is a comfort. Like a cozy blanket on a cold night, or a lit candle in a dark room. It just makes me feel better. Maybe ignorance is bliss.

As for the film, I must say that I have treaded over all these arguments before in my life and probably agree with them as presented. But, I still like to believe there is something greater or divine in existence. Not necessarily as presented in any text.

The movie was a treat to watch. A little over exaggerated in some spots. The music was hauntingly beautiful and really sold the film. The free cam was okay, but I thought going from the bible to the speakers and back again (over and over) was a bit nauseating. The editing was tight and the film as a whole was solidly constructed. Well done.

It takes a lot of guts to present a film like this to the masses, considering the controversial subject matter. I have to applaud you for taking a chance not many of us would.

Cheers!

Posted on June 3, 2007
- jase180

"Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto."
-Buddha

A well thought out documentary with a valid position from the get go. The crowd that believes a Palestinian Jew had blonde hair and blue eyes (genetically impossible at the time, as the gene pool itself was smaller and more localized)aside, a book written by men will always be a book written by men. While religion serves to provide the masses with some sort of hope, it always provides those with more nefarious intentions an excuse. I am always fascinated by the zealots, and in this country, they are a dime a dozen. If only a true separation of church and state existed. All countries have them, the "enlightened" leaders of various religions waiting to take your soul on trade for faith and unbridled loyalty to the church. Yet, here we are in the 21st century and the most confusing and contradictory belief systems thrive. It amazes me.

Intelligent Design is neither.

I'm so very impressed Jazz by your solid and professional delivery of such a significant film. The free cam was top notch and skillful, the sound design flawless. A_N_D delivered a quality performance that never fell into a "parody" or sketch based delivery, it remained entirely legit throughout. Jaxx, you can walk away from viewing this film and just listen to the audio and i doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between this and any other Discovery Channel documentary. Well presented, never assuming and always to the point, this is a much needed breath of fresh air. I very much look forward to the next installment and offer up a well deserved "bravo" to you.

�??Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.�??

--Steven Weinberg

Posted on June 3, 2007
- AnotherNewDawn

Taken tongue-in-cheek or taken as "gospel", this film challenges and challenges and challenges.

Anything this thought-provoking in a machinima film deserves five stars.

I was born and raised with religion, and have come to realize over all my years (and when I finally "got over" my religion...) that the greatest gift any "creator" could have ever given us is our intellect and ability to wonder and question EVERYTHING.

I'll bet money that the angriest, most unforgiving reviews for this film will all come from fundamentalists... ;)

That's really very funny, but in a very sad way.


A_N_D

Posted on June 2, 2007
- MefuneAkira

A very brave and well executed documentary on the worlds biggest delusional vice.

Professional, clear and undeniable facts are what makes this documentary worth watching. Facts of evolution, physical evidence of the impossibilities of the Bible and logical reasoning by intelligent human beings are essential to the conclusion that religion is nothing more than a crutch, similar to alcohol and drug dependence, to cope with life�??s difficulties. When someone is dying, religion dependants prey for recovery, yet they go to the hospital for treatment. When the ailment is cured, the religious dependants thank god and not the doctors or the millions of biologists, scientists and professors who research, discover and produce the life saving medications and medical procedures. (Yes, I had cancer and now I am in remission. I thanked my doctors for my recovery and questioned the religious dependents who tried to convince me it was "gods doing". My retort? "Every man, women and child died from cancer before the 1970's, where was god then?" That�??s when they are at a loss for words and walked away.)

I have research Christianity my whole life and know many need to believe there is someone watching over and protecting them at all times or there lives may fall apart due to knowing they are on their own and must think for themselves. However, I am a �??pro-human being�?? activist and know if every religious dependant took all of their time, effort and money they spend on religion and utilized it to helping others in the world, instead of feeding their dependants of a delusional safety blanket, the Earth as we know it would be the Heaven they are seeking in the first place.

In Africa alone, a child dies every 5 seconds from Malaria, AIDS and starvation. What is more important, the 2 million dollar church or feeding and medicating 4,000,000 dying infants? Religious dependants ALWAYS roll their eyes and will never answer this question, because like many faults in the Bible, the answer would only further prove to the world that religion is nothing but a selfish, socially dangerous and an environmentally unproductive waste of time.

The bible states very clearly that god says owning, beating, raping and trading slaves is acceptable. It also states that anyone who is gay, a disbeliever, a disobedient child, a blasphemer, an adulterer or anyone who works on Sunday �??SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH�?? (Exodus 20: 8-9, Exodus 31 verse 15, Deut 17:2-7, 2 Chron 15:12-13 , Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Lev 24:16 , Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 25:44, Leviticus 20:10 , Leviticus 20:13 )

This statement is of my own opinion and not of all members of L.M.A.O. Studios. I speak my mind, not to offend anyone, but to hopefully make the reader take a moment of pause and do something religious dependants refuse to attempt�?�Think for yourself, research your beliefs and question your doubts!

A great film Jazzx and you have my full support my friend! Bring on Part 2!

Mefune Akira
L.M.A.O. Studios

Posted on June 2, 2007
- NUKESTER

A Fascinating Documentary with Tongue in cheek comedic values. The narration was well excecuted and I found myself concentrating, processing and listening in like I do with all documentaries featuring Sir David Attenborough as the narrator. This was a refreshing, satisfying break from the norm and I cant wait to see the next episode, so for now...

Nuke Well in the Illusiion!

Posted on June 2, 2007
 
Reviews
- cecil_evans

you are going to hell, dude. :)

dawkins is a genius who is, sadly, little known among the masses. too bad this documentary isn't on real tv, and not just jxtv. he should be a household name.

i get a kick out of some of these reviews. basil_fawlty's is exceptional. you'd think a guy who assumed THAT name as his alter-ego would have a sense of humor.

technically, this movie is wonderful. it is shot with an artistic eye and has a well-thought-out and insightful argument, that is presented in both an entertaining and didactic manner.

the main contention is, of course that evolution is fact and creationism is, well, silly. i'm more of the deist mind, that god created everything and then kept his hands out of it. if that's the case, there are processes he could put in place to take care of things, so he doesn't need to involve himself with the everyday chores of running a universe. evolution is one of them. since he knows things will change over time, he could program his organisms to adapt. so, in my tiny little brain, i can reconcile creationism and evolution. i've often wondered why so few others can't. the argument always seems to come down to: i'm right, and you're an idiot. or i'm right, and you're going to hell.

and that leads me to hell. why would any decent, intelligent, compassionate person need to have the threat of eternal damnation hung over his head, just so he'll be nice to others?? can't we refrain from killing each other, without having to worry about our souls burning in sulfur and brimstone?? this is one reason smart people get turned off to religion. we fancy ourselves as adults who can make decisions without being motivated by fear. anyway, back to the review...

i enjoyed your decision to use humor in your visuals, while the vocal content remained serious and scientific. the contrast is striking. makes the funny stuff funnier, and gives the serious stuff more weight. the skipping gorillas killed me, and the werewolf attacking the chickens was priceless.

all in all, you've put together an excellent documentary. a little peek into the mind of jazzx, bane of new directors. nice work, but don't get too [censored!]y, i have some complaints:

i take exception with your supposition that the 'vast majority' of americans believe in 'new world creationism.' while most of us profess christianity, (myself not included), there is only a small minority that believes that 6000 year old stuff. please be careful about generalizing when attempting to put forth facts. especially in a scientific context. i'd like to know where you got the 60% figure from. again, they may believe god created the heavens and the earth, but that doesn't mean they believe in the 3000 year old dinosaur bs. i don't mean to belabor the point, but we yanks get a bad rap about this. we're not all cowboys who pray to invisible old men in the sky, is all i'm saying. ah well, in two weeks we'll be electing a new president, and a new direction for the country. maybe, just for a little while, the intellectuals among us will hold prominence. damn, just when i bought a new shotgun rack for my pickup truck!

one other very small complaint. i think that AND may have missed a little on his falwell. not in his acting, which is superb as usual, but that he is not nearly bombastic enough for the real thing. i'm guessing you made this before the old blowhard (dare i say?) met his maker. he was an animated, larger than life old fool, who could bloviate with the best of them. that doesn't come across in this portrayal.

but other than that, excellent. an enjoyable 13 minutes.

Posted on October 24, 2008
- dayewilliams

Wow what A stand out movie...a very powerful conception to take on. Its great. The use of the costumes were great, also to make a documentry. This my friend is a very controversial film. From reading the description I placed a 4 upon it and watching this I wouldve given you something higher. Great in a way to take on sciene v. religion.
Final Thought- I know that I myself is a modern day philosopher, i challenge today with answers of "being here", our purpose, and why wake up everyday to play THE MOVIES. Science is proof and evidence, i find it vastly creative and pushes the mind to excel at 10%.I love science it makes me think and when I write I research a whole lot. I love literature too, science plays well into. You see Science may have evidence, but I AM a man of GOD. You see I love the thought of evolutionism and creationism but if Monkeys are a closest to us why do they not evole now (is it the water) I do understand that we evole in our consciences. We all learn everyday, and develop new inventions. My biggest question is "what makes human beings-be?" now you can give me a whole scientific compliation of the human brain and sub/conscience but I believe in Souls. Now we can all debate, and I may be crazy to see both sides but really I'm really just trying to find a answer to life not antagonize anyone else but calling their belief non-sensible. we have a right to choose whether is Free Will or we are MAN, so anybody with a right sense of mind so should dip their hands into the opposite belief not be afraid of it. This movie deserves a 5.POINT BLANK. Let me know when Part 2 is here

Posted on October 2, 2008
- tiffyp

oh my god (no pun intended) this is the best documentary i have ever watched on the movies online!!!! seriously i agree with everything that was said. i can't wait until the next the next one!

Posted on September 24, 2008
- robertsondunn

Judging purely on a technical standpoint, this film checks all the boxes, dots all the i's and crosses all the t's. It's quite obviously has taken a great deal of work and effort. But I can't help but feel that it's a little hollow.

There is already a great deal of material from Dawkins to illustrate his points. Both in books, and in movies. It's quite obvious that you were trying to emulate Dawkin's documentaries. And in that sense, you have succeeded quite well. It truly felt like a movie by Richard Dawkins.

My problems with this movie are mainly related to it's unclear objective. The writing seemed well laid out and serious in tone. However, the visuals seemed farcical. But only slightly in most cases. Aside from the one image of Bush, I would have to say that I didn't laugh at all in this film. So if your aim was farce, I'm sorry to say that you failed.

But after closer examination, I would say that this film was more really just an emulation of Dawkins' work. An attempt to point out the apparent idiocy of other people core beliefs. The problem I have with this aim is that it is in direct opposition to a respectful debate. Dawkins can normally be seen in his films as being irritated, angry, and disrespectful to those that have differing opinions to him. Much in the same way that "Richard Lawkins" is disrespectful to "Jerry Falwell" in this film.

Dawkins decries religions, and their "us vs them" mentality. But then goes on to perpetuate the same mentality with his own atheistic belief. Which only serves to help divide cultures and beliefs. The people that he chooses to interview on the other side of the fence are extremists. Jerry Falwell is one such person. By only choosing to interview extremists such as Falwell, Dawkins is able to paint all people of that religious denomination with the same broad strokes. Thus giving the impression that all religious people are nutty wackjobs.

But this really isn't the case. The simple truth of the matter is that most religious people are not extremists. They are respectful of other people and other religions. And a good many of them even abhor extremists of their own denomination. The same can be said about atheists like myself. I dislike Richard Dawkins' methods, and hate the broad strokes that I have been painted with because of his works, and other works such as this film.

The best advice I can give is to just try and remember that this is a game bud. It's meant to be fun. It's got the added "yay" factor of allowing you to create short films and share them with the world. But it's still just a game. Also, it's ok to take a stand on an issue, but belittling people in opposition to your views in an attempt to appear better than them is rather shallow.

Posted on September 21, 2008
- IgorS

Directing: 5/5- excellent!
Script: 5/5- like a real documentary!
Sound: 5/5- great!
Genre fit: 5/5- as I said, it is really made like a real documentary!
Fun: 5/5- well, this is a subject that really interests me.
Overall: 5 stars! It is a really good documentary. I also want to say that I agree with it's subject. I don't reject the Bible as a historical document, BUT I do understand the the creation of the world and different miracles are myths just like those in other ancient cultures. I remember that in school my Bible teacher brought us ancient Sumerian texts that told exactly the same stories about the creation of the world (only the names of the gods were different). Also I remember something about two totally different creation stories, and BOTH appear in the Bible. In conclusion, I would like to say that religion is good because of the faith and belief in something good, after all religion brought many good things to humanity (Gandhi's struggle, for example, wouldn't have succeeded without faith). Unfortunately, religion is (and always was) controlled by primitive, conservative and militaristic people who make our world and the religions look bad. I don't consider myself a religious person, but I won't say I'm an atheist either. I do believe that a person needs faith, but I do not believe in prayers and different customs.
Oh, and one more sentence my Bible teacher from high-school told us: "I have a secret for you: we invented God!"

Posted on September 11, 2008
- TheSeeress

I want to rate this a 1 just because you are incredibly horrible to other people (probably to bring yourself up higher in the charts), but this is an informative movie that I think more people (i agree - the usa especially!) needs to see. I agree with you that most religions are uneducated. I actually think they are brain-washing mind-control, because a population that believes what you want them to is easier to control.

I do disagree that there is no god though (or whatever the hell you want to call it). In the words of Albert Einstien - "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." Life may have evolved, stars form in their nebulas, but what created it all? What was the spark that set everything in motion?? The fundamental base of every religion is to explain the why of everything - precisely what science is trying to do. I'm definitely no bible-thumper - i don't even have a religion - but science and the fundamental basis that every religion shares are just 2 sides of the same coin. Regardless of what pathetic and stupid rules and regulations specific religions may place on their mindless following sheep - something had to have started it all.

Posted on September 3, 2008
- ostgarden

Lawkins is right when he says ignorance is ver very dangerous but he is not, as he considers himself to be, trancendent of it. His focus is soley on what physical tools that WE created can determine to be "REAL". Of course then all that can be "REAL" is going to be of a limited physical understanding. Where do ideas come from? We know, physical chemicals in the brain, right, but what about there motivation to fire, not like an emotional type motivation but a deeper driving law of creation, and no I don't mean god. I mean it's physicaly inmeasureable essence, like a seed for example, it obviously has its shell with which we can if chosen interact with physicaly, but, before a seeds begins to grow if cracked open it reveals only emptiness. No physical growth mechanisms at all. It starts from the void that works in nescessary balance with our physical realities. Without this there would be no physical reality, except maby a one-mass reality with no space between Anything.

Posted on June 29, 2008
- markrichardbehenna

"This is a movie by Satan." It pains me to admit that whilst my reviews can be entertaining, they will never be as hilarious as the comments from those kids fresh out of YouTube.

I can see why it can be interpreted as offensive though, probably wasn't a good idea to call religion a disease. This subject is one of the most heated throughout the Internet. I'm agnostic. I don't believe evolution necessarily disproves the existence of a god, but neither am I willing to zealously follow some ancient book which threatens me with hell if I don't follow it's commands. Hey at least when I donate to charity, I can claim truthfully that I wasn't under threat!

The main character (along with the argument) is clearly inspired by Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist. Followed by music with a mysterious universal feel, he outlines that the human race has gained much knowledge, coming that little bit closer to answering those big questions - like the meaning of life. Then he reveals that there are those who choose to follow "blind faith" and that religion is dangerous. Nevermind that when using an example which would appear to support this argument on the surface, there are many other factors to consider. Or that history's evilist tyrants were atheists themselves. I won't go into the Islamic factions because I know bugger all about them frankly.

Voiceovers were perfect for a documentary. My concern was when Dawkins questioned Jerry, and all Jerry could do was point at the bible and say "duh... magic book said so." You might make a drinking game out of it, such as taking a shot whenever he answers a question by pointing to the book, though I think we'll all die of alcohol poisoning. Jerry is being used as a representation of Christianity (or the catholic faith, lord knows what the difference is) and is acting like an uneducated child. I'm fairly confident that the majority of adults in his religion would come up with a better argument. Maybe not in America... oops did I say that out loud?

It was certainly an interesting piece. I'd tempted to watch the next episode.

Posted on June 15, 2008
- strangeling23

I agree with binky123, deeb, and xmf93x. binky123 summed the whole thing up. This movie is extremely offensive not only to others on TMO, but to God.

Posted on April 23, 2008
- binky123

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
--Psalm 14:1

Posted on April 23, 2008
- deeb

I TOTALLY disagree. I belive THERE IS A GOD and this movie thing is awful. This is-- I have no words to express. I don't understand how so many people are Goddless. I agree with xmf93x. This is a movie by Satan. Might as well say that. I thought that there were more good people than not. I was wrong.

Posted on April 18, 2008
- xmf93x

good technically, but it was just very very boring. I did not like that it was extremely offensive so i am flagging it, it was a bad movie!!!!

try comedy, comedy is never offensive because the point of good comedy is to offend people!!!!

Posted on March 22, 2008
- fantasia

It's a great movie and a good idea to make a movie questioning religion.
I don't agree that faith and scince exclude each other - an intellegent person believes in inteligent way and first at all he doesn't believe everything.The bible is not a history book (although it's a source of information for historians)so I really wonder meanwhile that in our century there are still educated people who take the bible as a scintific explanation and believe f.e. that the earth was made in 6 days. I read interpretations of Genesis written by some famous monks in different countries - they don't demand blind faith but use the scince to explain the bible and encourage the questioning and doubts in order to find answers. But i think this way of thinking or believing is not that of the majority of the society. I even met people who finished the university and who consider the philosophy being the antagonist to the religion! But the philosophy considers the religion as a part of itself.
Unfortunately it's just very true that the religions have been always as a mean of control of the people. And I don't think it will change - there is no better way to scare the people than to promise them hell or paradise - and that for ever.
There is one thing that is not correct in the film - the humans don't have their roots in the apes, but the apes and the humans have the same roots. There was a kind of first animal whose genetic mutation ended in the variety of animals that we have today, that's why the genetic code is similiar and that's why the apes don't mutate to a human.
Thanks for watching my movies.
Greetings.

Posted on March 22, 2008
- Torqual

I dropped in to see what you had on offer and have to say I was very impressed! Funny, and true.

An excellent spoof of Horizon-style documentaries, this could easily be on BBC2 sandwiched between David Attenbrough and Dr Robert Winston.

Highlights for me were the werewolf devouring the chicken, and and the creationist university!

By the way, which set is the one that looked like a Library? I really want that one.

Thanks for your comments on LITF Part 2. Part 3 will be online tomorrow, hopefully, so please check back - and let me know about the library set!

Posted on March 22, 2008
- stardate

Now that was very interesting,Documenteries are boring to me,but ths one was differnt I just had to see somthing else that was created by you, ten times bettr than one of your other movie I watched.

Posted on March 22, 2008
- MaxPaxJaxxx

This is very interesting! Cool, thanks for the link thing.

Posted on March 20, 2008
- BasilFawltY

What an utterly stupid message. What a shame for a movie that has such great work, technically and in terms of writing.

It was a nice move to paint Falwell, the voice of religion in this, as a pug-ugly man with a hick's accent. This creates a subtle message that religious people are ugly hicks. You, conversely, portray Dawkins-I-mean Lawkins as a calm educated British man. You isolate Liberty University and use it as quite the stand for education in America. America's education is far from conservative. Dawk-Lawkins also speaks about chance and the lack thereof in Evolution. The idea that life ITSELF exists is incredible. He says that there is no chance involved. Nay, the atmosphere is the greatest reflector of this "chance" it is chance that some species cannot survive due to environmental issues. You know why? It's chance that the environment turned out that way. And further information can be found here: http://www.everystudent.com/wires/green.html

Proof of God's existence?

Found in this series of articles:

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

there are links in several places around the site.

Daw-Lawkins also makes the much trotted out claim of "Religion causes war." Religion doesn't kill, people do. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, was a pacifist. A total pacifist. Not much support for war there, eh? Furthermore, all of the 20th century's "villains" so to speak, were militant atheists. Adolf Hitler? Atheist. Pol Pot? Atheist. Mao Zedong? Atheist. Josef Stalin? Atheist. As the 4 worst men in a long time were Atheists, it casts a degree of doubt on the "religon causes war" argument. Many, many, people will mention the crusades as an argument for religion's war causation. THE CRUSADES WERE FAUGHT FOR MONEY AND POWER. If you believe otherwise you're as dumb as Dawkins says Falwell is.

For Christ's existence?

Beyond Blind Faith
The life of Jesus Christ. Was he the Son of God? A brief look at the life of Jesus and why it's not blind faith to believe in him...

Beyond Blind Fatih

By Paul E. Little (not me)


life of Jesus

It is impossible for us to know conclusively whether God exists and what He is like unless He takes the initiative and reveals Himself. We must know what He is like and His attitude toward us. Suppose we knew He existed, but that He was like Adolf Hitler -- capricious, vicious, prejudiced, and cruel. What a horrible realization that would be!

We must scan the horizon of history to see if there is any clue to God's revelation. There is one clear clue. In an obscure village in Palestine, almost 2,000 years ago, a Child was born in a stable. Today the entire world is still celebrating the birth of Jesus.

He lived in obscurity until He was thirty, and then began a public ministry that lasted three years. It was destined to change the course of history. He was a kindly person and we're told that "the common people heard Him gladly." And, "He taught as One who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law" (Matthew 7:29).
The Life of Jesus Christ. His Story Begins

It soon became apparent, however, that He was making shocking and startling statements about Himself. He began to identify Himself as far more than a remarkable teacher or prophet. He began to say clearly that He was God. He made His identity the focal point of His teaching. The all-important question He put to those who followed Him was, "Who do you say I am?" When Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:15-16), Jesus was not shocked, nor did He rebuke Peter. On the contrary, He commended him!

He made the claim explicitly, and His hearers got the full impact of His words. We are told, "The Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18).

On another occasion he said, "I and My Father are One." Immediately the Jews wanted to stone Him. He asked them for which good work they wanted to kill Him. They replied, "We are not stoning You for any of these but for blasphemy, because You, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33).

Jesus clearly claimed attributes which only God has. When a paralyzed man was let down through the roof wanting to be healed by Him, He said, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." This caused a great to-do among the religious leaders, who said in their hearts, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

At the critical moment when His life was at stake, the high priest put the question to Him directly: "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy" (Mark 14:61-64).

So close was His connection with God that He equated a person's attitude to Himself with the person's attitude toward God. Thus, to know Him was to know God (John 8:19; 14:7). To see Him was to see God (12:45; 14:9). To believe in Him was to believe in God (12:44; 14:1). To receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37). To hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23). And to honor Him was to honor God (5:23).
Jesus Christ - the Son of God?

Son of God ?As we face the claims of Christ, there are only four possibilities. He was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the Truth. If we say He is not the Truth, we are automatically affirming one of the other three alternatives, whether we realize it or not.

(1) One possibility is that Jesus lied when He said He was God -- that He knew He was not God, but deliberately deceived His hearers to lend authority to His teaching. Few, if any, seriously hold this position. Even those who deny His deity affirm that He was a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if, on the most crucial point of His teaching -- His identity -- He was a deliberate liar.

(2) A kinder, though no less shocking possibility, is that He was sincere but self-deceived. We have a name for a person today who thinks he is God. That name is lunatic, and it certainly would apply to Christ if He were deceived on this all-important issue. But as we look at the life of Christ, we see no evidence of the abnormality and imbalance we find in a deranged person. Rather, we find the greatest composure under pressure.

(3) The third alternative is that all of the talk about His claiming to be God is a legend -- that what actually happened was that His enthusiastic followers, in the third and fourth centuries, put words into His mouth He would have been shocked to hear. Were He to return, He would immediately repudiate them.

The legend theory has been significantly refuted by many discoveries of modern archeology. These have conclusively shown that the four biographies of Christ were written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. Some time ago Dr. William F. Albright, world-famous archaeologist now retired from Johns Hopkins University, said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70. For a mere legend about Christ, in the form of the Gospel, to have gained the circulation and to have had the impact it had, without one shred of basis in fact, is incredible.

For this to have happened would be as fantastic as for someone in our own time to write a biography of the late John F. Kennedy and in it say he claimed to be God, to forgive people's sins, and to have risen from the dead. Such a story is so wild it would never get off the ground because there are still too many people around who knew Kennedy. The legend theory does not hold water in the light of the early date of the Gospel manuscripts.

(4) The only other alternative is that Jesus spoke the truth. From one point of view, however, claims don't mean much. Talk is cheap. Anyone can make claims. There have been others who have claimed to be God. I could claim to be God, and you could claim to be God, but the question all of us must answer is, "What credentials do we bring to substantiate our claim?" In my case it wouldn't take you five minutes to disprove my claim. It probably wouldn't take too much more to dispose of yours. But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38).
Evidence from the Life of Jesus

who is Jesus ?First, His moral character coincided with His claims. Many asylum inmates claim to be celebrities or deities. But their claims are belied by their characters. Not so with Christ. He is unique -- as unique as God.

Jesus Christ was sinless. The caliber of His life was such that He was able to challenge His enemies with the question, "Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin?" (John 8:46). He was met by silence, even though He addressed those who would have liked to point out a flaw in His character.

We read of the temptations of Jesus, but we never hear of a confession of sin on His part. He never asked for forgiveness, though He told His followers to do so.

This lack of any sense of moral failure on Jesus' part is astonishing in view of the fact that it is completely contrary to the experience of the saints and mystics in all ages. The closer men and women draw to God, the more overwhelmed they are with their own failure, corruption, and shortcomings. The closer one is to a shining light, the more he realizes his need of a bath. This is true also, in the moral realm, for ordinary mortals.

It is also striking that John, Paul, and Peter, all of whom were trained from earliest childhood to believe in the universality of sin, all spoke of the sinlessness of Christ: "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).

Pilate, no friend of Jesus, said, "What evil has He done?" He implicitly recognized Christ's innocence. And the Roman centurion who witnessed the death of Christ said, "Surely He was the Son of God" (Matthew. 27:54).

Second, Christ demonstrated a power over natural forces which could belong only to God, the Author of these forces.

He stilled a raging storm of wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee. In doing this He provoked from those in the boat the awestruck question, "Who is this? Even the wind and waves obey Him!" (Mark 4:41) He turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people from five loaves and two fish, gave a grieving widow back her only son by raising him from the dead, and brought to life the dead daughter of a shattered father. To an old friend He said, "Lazarus, come forth!" and dramatically raised him from the dead. It is most significant that His enemies did not deny this miracle. Rather, they tried to kill Him. "If we let Him go on like this," they said, "everyone will believe in Him" (John11:48).

Third, Jesus demonstrated the Creator's power over sickness and disease. He made the lame to walk, the dumb to speak, and the blind to see. Some of His healings were of congenital problems not susceptible to psychosomatic cure. The most outstanding was that of the blind man whose case is recorded in John 9. Though the man couldn't answer his speculative questioners, his experience was enough to convince him. "One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" he declared. He was astounded that his friends didn't recognize this Healer as the Son of God. "Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind," he said (John 9:25, 32). To him the evidence was obvious.

Fourth, Jesus' supreme credential to authenticate His claim to deity was His resurrection from the dead. Five times in the course of His life He predicted He would die. He also predicted how He would die and that three days later He would rise from the dead and appear to His disciples.

Surely this was the great test. It was a claim that was easy to verify. It either happened or it didn't.

Both friends and enemies of the Christian faith have recognized the resurrection of Christ to be the foundation stone of the faith. Paul, the great apostle, wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul rested his whole case on the bodily resurrection of Christ. Either He did or He didn't rise from the dead. If He did, it was the most sensational event in all of history.
If Jesus is the Son of God...

If Christ rose, we know with certainty that God exists, what He is like, and how we may know Him in personal experience. The universe takes on meaning and purpose, and it is possible to experience the living God in contemporary life.

story of JesusOn the other hand, if Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is an interesting museum piece -- nothing more. It has no objective validity or reality. Though it is a nice wishful thought, it certainly isn't worth getting steamed up about. The martyrs who went singing to the lions, and contemporary missionaries who have given their lives in Ecuador and Congo while taking this message to others, have been poor deluded fools.

The attack on Christianity by its enemies has most often concentrated on the Resurrection because it has been clearly seen that this event is the crux of the matter. A remarkable attack was the one contemplated in the early '30s by a young British lawyer. He was convinced that the Resurrection was mere fable and fantasy. Sensing that it was the foundation stone of the Christian faith, he decided to do the world a favor by once and for all exposing this fraud and superstition. As a lawyer, he felt he had the critical faculties to rigidly sift evidence and to admit nothing as evidence which did not meet the stiff criteria for admission into a law court today.

However, while Frank Morrison was doing his research, a remarkable thing happened. The case was not nearly as easy as he had supposed. As a result, the first chapter in his book, Who Moved the Stone? is entitled, "The Book That Refused to Be Written." In it he described how, as he examined the evidence, he became persuaded against his will, of the fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The Death of Jesus

Jesus' death was by public execution on a cross. The government said it was for blasphemy. Jesus said it was to pay for our sin. After being severely tortured, Jesus' wrists and feet were nailed to a cross where He hung, eventually dying of slow suffocation. A sword was thrust into His side to confirm His death.

The body of Jesus was then wrapped in linens covered with approximately 100 pounds of gummy-wet spices. His body was placed in a solid rock tomb A 1 1/2- 2 ton boulder was rolled by levers to secure the entrance. Because Jesus had publicly said He would rise from the dead in three days, a guard of trained Roman soldiers was stationed at the tomb. And an official Roman seal was affixed to the tomb entrance declaring it government property.

In spite of all this, three days later the body was gone. Only the grave linens remained, in the form of the body, but caved in. The boulder formerly sealing the tomb was found up a slope, some distance away from the tomb.
Was Jesus' Resurrection Just a Story?

who is Jesus ?The earliest explanation circulated was that the disciples stole the body! In Matthew 28:11-15, we have the record of the reaction of the chief priests and the elders when the guards gave them the infuriating and mysterious news that the body was gone. They gave the soldiers money and told them to explain that the disciples had come at night and stolen the body while they were asleep. That story was so false that Matthew didn't even bother to refute it! What judge would listen to you if you said that while you were asleep you knew it was your neighbor who came into your house and stole your television set? Who knows what goes on while he's asleep? Testimony like this would be laughed out of any court.

Furthermore, we are faced with a psychological and ethical impossibility. Stealing the body of Christ is something totally foreign to the character of the disciples and all that we know of them. It would mean that they were perpetrators of a deliberate lie which was responsible for the deception and ultimate death of thousands of people. It is inconceivable that, even if a few of the disciples had conspired and pulled off this theft, they would never have told the others.

Each of the disciples faced the test of torture and martyrdom for his statements and beliefs. Men and women will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie. If ever a man tells the truth, it is on his deathbed. And if the disciples had taken the body, and Christ was still dead, we would still have the problem of explaining His alleged appearances.

A second hypothesis is that the authorities, Jewish or Roman, moved the body! But why? Having put guards at the tomb, what would be their reason for moving the body? Also, what about the silence of the authorities in the face of the apostles' bold preaching about the Resurrection in Jerusalem? The ecclesiastical leaders were seething with rage, and did everything possible to prevent the spread of this message that Jesus rose from the dead. They arrested Peter and John and beat and threatened them, in an attempt to close their mouths.

But there was a very simple solution to their problem. If they had Christ's body, they could have paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem. In one fell swoop they would have successfully smothered Christianity in its cradle. That they did not do this bears eloquent testimony to the fact that they did not have the body.

Another popular theory has been that the women, distraught and overcome by grief, missed their way in the dimness of the morning and went to the wrong tomb. In their distress they imagined Christ had risen because the tomb was empty. This theory, however, falls before the same fact that destroys the previous one. If the women went to the wrong tomb, why did the high priests and other enemies of the faith not go to the right tomb and produce the body? Further, it is inconceivable that Peter and John would succumb to the same mistake, and certainly Joseph of Arimathea, owner of the tomb, would have solved the problem. In addition, it must be remembered that this was a private burial ground, not a public cemetery. There was no other tomb nearby that would have allowed them to make this mistake.

The swoon theory has also been advanced to explain the empty tomb. In this view, Christ did not actually die. He was mistakenly reported to be dead, but had swooned from exhaustion, pain, and loss of blood. When He was laid in the coolness of the tomb, He revived. He came out of the tomb and appeared to His disciples, who mistakenly thought He had risen from the dead.

life of JesusThis is a theory of modern construction. It first appeared at the end of the eighteenth century. It is significant that not a suggestion of this kind has come down from antiquity among all the violent attacks which have been made on Christianity. All of the earliest records are emphatic about Jesus' death.

But let us assume for a moment that Christ was buried alive and swooned. Is it possible to believe that He would have survived three days in a damp tomb without food or water or attention of any kind? Would He have had the strength to extricate Himself from the graveclothes, push the heavy stone away from the mouth of the grave, overcome the Roman guards, and walk miles on feet that had been pierced with spikes? Such a belief is more fantastic than the simple fact of the Resurrection itself.

Even the German critic David Strauss, who by no means believes in the Resurrection, rejected this idea as incredible. He said:

It is impossible that One who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in the need of medical treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given the disciples the impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave; that He was the Prince of Life.

Finally, if this theory is correct, Christ Himself was involved in flagrant lies. His disciples believed and preached that He was dead but came alive again. Jesus did nothing to dispel this belief, but rather encouraged it.

The only theory that adequately explains the empty tomb is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Also, people who quote Deuteronomy as God's barabarism forget something. The Hebrews were a wandering tribe who'd just escaped from slavery, and everyone else wished for their death. They were in a permanent state of war until they settled in Canaan. Jesus also voided the Old Covenant commands with the...New Covenant.

And Eden may well have really existed during the last ice age where the Persian gulf is now. The Gulf's waterlines retracted, creating another river, as well as a spot were the Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon, and the Persian Gulf river would have met. That is where the Bible claims God made Eden. Also, the snake's saying that Adam and Eve would become like God could be a metaphor for the beginning of agriculture. Agriculture gives you the power to make life, making you "like God". Their expulsion from Eden can be seen as the end of hunter-gatherers. The flood? When the Ice Age ended, water levels would have risen. In some areas it would be gradual, but in the Middle East, with its mountains, the sea level rise would have become a flood. Sound farmiliar?

You also portrayed religious people as anti-science, which cannot be farther from the truth. Many religous people believe in Evolution, but they believe God caused it. That is all.

What a wonderfully crafted film Jazz. Too bad its message was bad. 3.5 stars.

Posted on March 19, 2008
- BiggsTrek

This was an interesting and fun little movie. While the message is quite 'deep' (to some it would be offensive, I'm sure) it's shown in a lighthearted way (for the most part).

(And isn't it strange that in all that long description, the thing that sticks in my mind is the Teagan reference! lol)

Nicely done, JazzX.

Posted on February 13, 2008
- tyler0605

nice movie along with your rating for mine those may not be the real monsters they may be just some

Posted on February 9, 2008
- blindmelon

A splendid pseudo-documentary, alas,12 minutes is not enough to really scratch the surface of its own subject matter, but, that takes nothing away from this bold attempt at bringing some sense of reality here to the virtual world of movie making.

Posted on February 2, 2008
- bellasellaa

pretty bad....no..... really bad. and non credited music!! tsk tsk (soooooooo boring)

Posted on February 2, 2008
- Amabeginzordawg

Unique, Interesting, and highly intriguing.

You've created something very original here Jazz. I have a friend that is extremely religious and we debate on some issues here and there. He always ends up going back on faith. No matter what. It ends up "Faith man." I have a really big problem with him sometimes. He's definitely brainwashed as he sometimes talks about how he saw a guy go bald in seconds and a guy lose weight in seconds...etc. 2 years ago I was basically an athesist/slight agnostic, but now I believe in God. Some things have happened and I believe in him. But all that other stuff in the bible....naaaaa. And my view on God is much different than the idealistic view of most christians today.

This movie makes you think. I really liked it. Please make more... and thanks for sharing your views. GREAT JOB!

Since you already have a rating I'll just say what I would have given it right here.
PG - Mature Thematic Elements

~ Erik

Posted on January 13, 2008
- KarlBrown

Groundbreaking in ideal, amongst the TMO Community. I've never seen someone not only debunk religious belief with a video game, but to put strait forward information as to why you've done so, and propose specific questions of origin.

Of the film its self, you have an impressive use of overlays and I appreciate it when directors don't go overboard with modifications and just allow their great control of Free Cam to tell the story, which is exactly what you've done here.

I do not see this is as a documentary, though, which is what I believe you were going for. All good documentaries(in my perspective)never try to explain why something is bad, rather giving out the details then following to ask a question, and this is the one point I'd have to remark on. So I propose this question to you; can't science be the answer to how, and not the questions of why?

Posted on December 22, 2007
- Helloiseeu

Finally, someone who speaks out!!Your 100% correct. I attend a catholic school and have found nothing right of what they say. Everything is phisycally impossible. Praying is an example. Parents say too their little kids to wish on a star and your wish might come true. When you become like 9 years old you know wishing isn't real. Praying and wishing..Whats the differces??Religon is a excuse for war. Think of it. If there was no religon..the twin towers wouldn't have fallen. The crusades wouldn't have happened. The inquiston would'nt happen. I mean religon says that were all equal and if you pray god will hear you and answer you. Well, that explains the little kids dying for clean water in Africa. All my friends say. Hey man, what religon are you. I say athiest. They ask why. And tell them that almost all of what god and the bible are saying has been porven wrong. They say theres only one god and you'll go to heaven if your good. Bullsh*t!What about Muslims and Jews. What does God do to them when they die???What good has religon done besides untie the Roman Empire becuase they were falling. Religon tries to get into politics. They trick the world for years. Only the few people stand up and know the truth. Greeks 3000 years ago knew the world was round. The pope used to say it's flat. Bullsh*t!!Catholic teachers say "spread the good news of god". Good??Crusades!!That a good way. Killing Muslims??Bullsh*t!!All the little kids in my school think theres a god. Well, look at the proof!Religon was made way back in the day when people couldn't explain why the world was made and many questions like that. Now, we got proof that it's not real. Why?Why?Why?Do people believe in it??Everyone whos been at a catholic school since they were born says God is real shut up!They have been brainwashed!When I see if people at a public school think the same they know better. Catholic schools are supposed to teach better education. Thats why you pay to go there. What do you get. Fake Lies!!!!!I'm speaking as a catholic school student saying none of these religons are real. Science outsmarts religon. The only reason so many people believe in god is becuase they are influced as a child to become one. It be cool if you interviewed me becuase i'm a current student at a catholic school. But, I know you wont!

Anywho excellent movie!Bookmarked!

Posted on November 12, 2007
- 0630

Well despite your Harsh rating of my movies,I've decided to give you five points and yes you seem to be quite knowledgable in the subject in question,by the way I never found the mistakes you had pointed out.Nonetheless I still believe in god ,if not so fanatically,but my massage in my films is more of what I personally either experienced or have been among people who have experienced it .So in some ways my experiences in life can be completely alien for some one who lived in a different location and living a little more conservative life stile .That does not make me more or less of a knowledgable person in comparison to the other person,Simply we have different experiences in life.Super fantastic movie by the way.Great luck to you.And By the way English is my fourth language.

Posted on November 9, 2007
- melicendre

It was a very interesting documentary! The set dressing and scenes used were well correlated with the narration (I'm sorry I don't know how to formulate my idea in english...). As a scientist, I agree with Dr Lawkins!

Posted on October 6, 2007
- Trashman

lol but George Bush IS a monkey!(I've seen many a website that tells me this haha)
;-)

You know,I laugh at religion,and people who defend it.I find it incredible that in this day and age,with all the educational tools available,all the evidence...that seemingly intelligent people still prefer to think faith is a better answer.
The problem is that people are sheep.They like to follow.Most people want a simple answer,and they don't want to think.
Religion was born from ignorance as far as I'm concerned.Yes they didn't know better then,but now we should.

One would think that as society progresses,so does our understanding of ourselves and everything around us...but this is not the case for the masses.
Why?
Because religions are like cults.People are brainwashed from an early age,and even if they aren't fanatical about their beliefs,they still believe it.If you get told something often enough by many people and from many different sources,eventually it becomes pseudo-fact.Fortunately many use their powers of reason to break the shackles of religious dogma which has been crammed into their brain....and then they can TRULY say "Hallelujah I have seen the light".
Honestly,I prefer to believe in something whereby I can use my powers of reason to decide...doesn't it make more sense to believe in something that is explained with observation and calculation?
Yes,science is an ongoing investigation through learning,so sometimes things aren't fully explained,or there are dead-end answers,but slowly and surely more answers are revealed.
You can't use observation and calculation with religion.It's based purely on faith.There is no proof.Oh I keep hearing the proof is in the bible.What proof?It is a book written by men,like any other book.The difference being that nothing of what is said therein can be proven,except for a few historical blurbs of some people and events.But mostly it's mumbo-jumbo-bunk.The bible is practically undecipherable...that is why there are countless religions based on the same book,and all these religions believe they are right and the others are wrong.It's a joke really.
How is any rational person supposed to decide what religion to pick as the "right" one,let alone which version of that religion when there are so many??Ohhh no,if I pick this one,then those guys say I will go to hell,but if I pick this other one then that religion says I will go to hell....and on and on it goes.
Tell you what.I wash my hands of ALL religion.I grew up in a religious family too,but was smart enough to throw it aside at a young age.
MANY of the world's problems today are caused by religion...in fact many throughout history.But I don't blame any one religion more than any other...they are all the same to me:
Wrong.

Anybody who says that both sides should be represented here is wrong too,because you cannot prove in any way anything with any religion.And religion has so many sides that they couldn't possibly be represented anyways...

I was told by someone once that no matter how hard I try,I cannot prove there isn't a god...I replied that no matter how hard you try you cannot prove there is one.
Which one of us is the more rational one?Think about it people.
Observation and calculation...and reason.

Good movie.Gets one to think.
I could have done without the chickens and apes(those aren't monkeys haha)but I can see how you used them to make a point.
My way of saying what I think is a little crazier than your way,but I think maybe we subscribe to the same paper...I'm the funny papers and you're the business section lol
Sorry about the rambling,but I'd better stop here because I could go on for hours lol:-)

Posted on August 28, 2007
- ranger21

this was probably the most interesting tmo movie i have watched, it was an interesting and thought provoking documentary. i thought the narration was excellent and really that was the films richness.

i liked the comedy moments like the apes skipping but overall i thought the documenatry was fascinating

great film

Posted on August 17, 2007
- trewill7

Absolutely brilliant film you've constructed hear, Jazz. I, myself am a free-thinker, believing that religion, much like government, is only a form of control, but i will not get into such things in this review. Instead, let's focus on the technical aspects.

Everything that makes movies great, rather it be Machinima or Hollywood, is present in this visual and verbal masterpiece. I truthfully feel that you did NOT attempt to press your beliefs on others, you merely shared them. Your writing is to be envied, as is your direction. Your VO talent is through the roof, as is A_N_D's, but of course, you guys already know that. The editing ws top-notch, and the free-cam was on-point.

You truly know how to lure people in Jazz, your smooth and clear vocals only made this product more enjoyable.

It will be bookmarked.

Fantastic work!

-tre

Posted on July 25, 2007
- MelonTheCreeker

A very well directed documentary!
Very interesting!
Well done!

Melon!

Posted on July 19, 2007
- bongoman

Excellent documentary, just like the real thing. Entertaining, pro v/o and soundtracks, and thanks for the enlightenment... 60% of America believes dinosaurs existed only 3000 years ago...?!?
All those tv evangelists are crooks in suits, and all these religions of the world are systems of exerting influence over many people. There is enlightenment to be found, but it must be found by oneself. If one accepts the teachings of someone else, one stops looking, and so never finds enlightenment.
Thanks for this flick.

Posted on July 10, 2007
- Mildheadwound

God hates you. Good show! He's just a [shhhh!]ing, blind watchmaker anyhow.

Posted on June 30, 2007
- Neroxc

A very interesting film, that shows, The Shows that The Movies, is much more than an game, it's a gateway to someone�??s ideas, thoughts and feelings and for some the only to express there idea. And this is one of those Movies.

This is a very interesting film because I was born in religion and for once I never thought that GOD didn't exist and that even thing in the bible was true and wise and am sure that my thoughts are shared by many other people, but if I was to go into more detail, I�??ll be here all day.

The VO's where very clear and the dioglue was sharp and witty, time and effort has been put into Doc and it pays off. At times I felt that I was watching something BBC quality, the editing was flawless and the free use was excellent. I never thought that The Movies could be used to create such excellence.

Overall this is a fantastic Doc/film and is certainly one of my favorites.
Well Done

Posted on June 28, 2007
- madone69

Wow! As a Documentary I'd have to say this was fantastic. The VO was perfect for our narrator, filming was perfect, and the music fit the mood pefectly as well. The documentary moved along quite well and I was highly into the narrative. The gorillas and chickens threw me for a loop for a moment and gave me a good chuckle, but not enough to drift me away from the topic. The only negative I can say is that it did come off a bit rough. As we know, religion is a very touchy subject. It was a punch to the gut to those with regligous beliefs, by knocking their beliefs and calling them unintelligent. That may have been a bit extreme and I've been reading to see how some have been taking it. I would have favored a better debate as well between Richard and Jerry. Overall, though an emotional topic, I have to say I really enjoyed this and look forward to seeing more from you. A brave topic, brave words, but very enjoyable.

Posted on June 27, 2007
- George_Locust

This was awsome! The content aside(for now) your free cam and editing are the best. Super, in fact!
Now as for he content, I have allways agreed more with science than faith, so I enjoyed this very much. I have read the bible and I think I could argue the creation point better than the guy in your movie does.
For example, I can explain Genesis in science terms. I believe the origional word used(in the hebrew origional bible) for day, was "yom" or something like that, and that can mean longer periods than a day. Could even mean a millenia.
So it could be said that God made everything in 6 millenia. Also, if you remember that the bible was written by Moses,(was many authors, but lets pretend) and he saw it in a vision, then all of Genesis happens from the point of view of someone standing on the Earth seeing millenia go by very quickly. So when Genesis says "Let there be light" represents the overcast that was the sky at the time finaly thined enough for the sun to lighten things(still cant see the sun) if you were standing on the surface(wasnt really a surface, was all water). Then it says "Divide the waters from the waters" this is moses seeing the overcast lift, and now between the clouds(water)and sea(water) there is a sky(firmament).
Then it says "let the water gather in one place and let the dry land appear"
This is moses seeing the catalysm that caused the rising of Pangea, the super continent. Then it says "let the Earth bring forth grass" this is vegetation. Plants started out in the sea, and slowly moved to the land via mosses and alge. Plants were first. Then it says "let there be lights in the firmament" now finnally enough millenia has gone by for the earth to age a bit and the overcast is gone enough for moses to see the sun and moon for the first time in his vision. Then it says "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above" animals started out in the water as well, and evolved into amphibeans that came on land,and that evolved into reptiles, more importantly, repiles very much like birds and closely related to "fowl" so it could be argued that dinosaurs are indeed mentioned in the bible. Then it mentions cattle. This is moses seeing the age of mammals come into being. Then moses sees in his vision, man, evolve into the master of his environment(civilization) which, by definition means to farm, as oppose to hunt and gather.
So it can be argued that the bible is very scientific. I for one have come to the conclusion that its just a matter of faith, either you have it, or you dont.
Personaly, I cant believe in anything that insults my inteligence. A man cant walk on water, its called boyancy, and you can read about it in a science book.

Great movie!

Posted on June 19, 2007
- Ranedthel

A wonderful first part presented in a very professional like manner. I don't know if this is an attempt to convert the viewer's way of thinking and/or believing or if it is just an attempt at sparking the viewer to think and reason for themself. I no time did this film put me to the edge of my seat but I was entertained at a steady pace and couldn't help but wonder where your statistics were coming from. Great film! I did enjoy it.

Posted on June 16, 2007
- EPANA

A very good documentary!

I dont think I have seen something like this on TMO before and it was very well made also.
Great VOs and very good use of sets. Selection of scenes was very good and they added imo. a comedical dimension to the movie.

The problem with all socalled facts know by us is that they only takes 1 or 2 steps foward to the truth. And the chain could be 10 or 1000 steps long or even longer. The question "why are we here"is really good because there is no real logical reasons or facts that will answer it ..belief on the other hand gives an answer to it.
But of course there are people that take every word as truth may it be islam,christianity etc... there were no dinosaurs 3000years ago..you dont get 75 virgins if you kill yourself.Mostly people that say these things just want power or other benefits for themselfs nothing to do to with what religion really should stand for.
Basically I think that science has only thouched the surface and the facts presentes are valid only for a really tiny part know to the mankind, making scince to sort of a religion.

Anyway who knows maybe this is matrix :)

Posted on June 16, 2007
- sweatyshoulder

I'm not religious at all, but I don't see why this is really a necessary series for TMO especially. Either way, I think you put it together wonderfully. However I think your excellent scene selection was marred by people running around in chicken costumes and easter bunny outfits. With such a serious production, it was difficult for me to separate my original TMO feelings (that chickens and bunnies are kind of stupid) with the feelings of "This is not a silly film; time to be serious." Couldn't you have used more beautiful backdrops or overlays in lieu of these costumes?

I'll have to give it a four because of that. But, I do think this was nicely done. Good job, four stars well earned.

Posted on June 12, 2007
- Nelson32

Very good movie!

Posted on June 8, 2007
- TeatroXolotl

Interested to see where this is going. A bit angry for a scientific mockumentary, eh? Be careful not to alienate your support base.

Posted on June 6, 2007
- Bragon

To believe or to know, that is the question.
Excellent documentary, audacious subject, and humour here and there to spice the all thing.

Posted on June 5, 2007
- Nayazu

Disappearing to fast from the top 25. What a pity.
Just read what qtigger wrote below, and I'll say I lost faith at 12 when preparing for my first Communion when I was told the Pope was the voice of God. It didn't make sense to me God was an elected priest. It was a good experience though, made me then questionned everything.
The Buddha's quote Jase uses is from a sutta about act. This is the text I use the most often to prove the Buddha never taught about morality but about ethical choice. Yet, in a larger context, it's the best thing ever told about don't believe, know by yourself.

Posted on June 5, 2007
- benstudios1991

The movie itself was spectacularly done, with great production values, excellent VOs, creativity, everything you could ask for.
The first half of the documentary was excellent, with great use of examples and pure logic. However, the debate is where it began to fall apart. A debate is supposed to offer equal input from both sides of an issue, but how can that be when one person is writing both responses in order to prove his own point?
Let me just say that the movie was excellent, but it simply did a mediocre job of proving its point. There were logical fallacies left and right, bias, half-truths and misused statements.
Now, on basic beliefs I'd have to say I'm closer to your point of view. However, when viewing the movie from a non-biased perspective, I saw that in the second half of the movie, the debate was unfair and the closing monologue was extremely closed-minded. (As if all people who believe in God believe that dinosaurs were around 3,000 years ago)
I myself don't see the point in attacking religion. If people are happy and moderate in believing, what point is there in shaking up their lives and ruining their faith? Of course radicals need to be stopped, but the majority of believers in God just want to live in peace.
Now, with all that aside, this is no doubt a 5 star movie. It was perfectly created and really made me think. I just see a whole lot of holes in your (and Dawkins') reasoning.

Posted on June 5, 2007
- Hamzahman

A Well Directed film with great voices and seems to be creating enough controversy. One thing is troubling me here however, stereotyping. The 9/11 image presented is (I'm assuming) an attack on Muslims, seperate from the rest of the film. If you read the Quran, you'll find that a martyr dies for protecting his.her relegion, not for some fianancial gain for Bin Laden. They take things out of context and call themselves Muslims. These terrorists should be swept away from the Earth for killing innocents and falseley telling people 'blame it on our relegion'

This really did my head in. apart from that it was actually a good film.

Posted on June 5, 2007
- Tek-To

My, I must say, even though the documentary itself isn't quite related any of the five genres, it still is a magnificient piece of art. You've made a great job at linking together this movie and the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy - if there is evidence about p, then p, and vice-versa. You got to love those syllogisms ^^

Anyway, the documentary itself filled the initial purpose you wanted him to have, and the scene editing/VO's/music/SFX helped me merging into the atmosphere of your movie, as well as captivating myself till the end. In short, your work is more than worthy of my five stars, and you fairly deserve it. Can't wait to see the rest of it ^^

Posted on June 5, 2007
- sisch

Hehe.. great work, JazzX! I love the documentary style, great cam work and amazing backdrops and overlays, this felt real on all levels!

I have been, all of my life, an atheist - so for me, it was easy to enjoy the comedy behind all this, but after the first few minutes I knew this would raise hell of a controversy!

I will always choose facts and science over religion - and my firm belief is that you have to believe in yourself to achive something in life - I would never say that religion is for the weak-minded, I would just say anyone has to do as he or she wants to do - but never, never, really never try to press your faith on anyone else - all that does is causing havoc, makes people kill each other, and generally makes people unhappy. Religious fundamentalism is evil. Use common sense and believe in a higher being if you want to - but question everything any church ever has said or done!

I admire your guts!

Posted on June 5, 2007
- verguit

Good vo's and sets.

Posted on June 5, 2007
- ubernewbie

I liked the way you lampooned religeon and science as they are both as bad as each other. Nice VOs and some nice backdrops. music was so-so and the editing was OK. Compitent but nothing wow. Good safe job all round.

Posted on June 5, 2007
- OD-Ork-Boy

THE GOOD:

I love how you managed to add small comedic moments to a film with a serious point and get away with it, very witty. The VO's were great, and the music was superb. I think you definatly got your point across, but I'll talk more about that shortly. You never once "Didle-daddled" in the film, always getting to the point and not "Spamming", if you would excuse such an odd term for a movie, but another way of saying it has lossed me.

THE BAD:

Calling anyone who seems to have a different belief other then your own an idiot is no better then them calling you an idiot, is it? Because no matter how "Idiotic" an idea may seem, if someone believes in it, no matter how much you disagree with it, insulting them is overly harsh. Plus, you in-directly called 60% of America idiots, which despite the fact I'm the opposite of patriotism and am not religious, I find slightly insulting none the less. This is my only qualm, I just find it overly harsh and think you could have gone about it in a more discreet, intellegent way. Up until that point, you were kicking ass, but then you fell short there for a moment by resulting to a petty insult. I'm going to take the benefit of the daught and presume that was only an in-character thing and that you'd go about it better if it was "you" on the screen. Know what I mean?

COMMENTS:

That was an entertaining show to watch, most definatly. I've downloaded it and put it in my personal archive. I gotta say a big bravo here for being brave enough to put something like this when you know you are inevitably going to receive a share of bad-feedback from the religious nuts. Plus, it's nice to see some like-minded individuals here, even if you did go perhaps too far on that above mentioned comment.

*****

- Orky.

Posted on June 4, 2007
- dante906v2

Absolutly brillaint!

Posted on June 4, 2007
- rysto

HIGHEST DEFINITION REVIEW
That was a very well done and most realistic TMO documentary I've seen. The characters were realistic and helped draw one into the story and the points the director was trying to make.
The arguement between Lawkins and Falwell was well written and acted, giving me a slight chuckle at times(hypocrytical facts, priestly security :p).

Unfortunately most people beleive what they are told blindly without checking themselves ESPECIALLY when it's from a person being well known(Falwell, Jim Jones, Osama bin Laden(Oooo did I group those three together?). Some people don't have the opportunity to learn the truth for themselves and are blindly led to die for someone elses cause and/or beliefs(and I'm not referring to just suicide bombings).
The solution is education and unfortunately religion has discovered that secret too(i.e. various religious schools, Wahhabi mosques, Liberty University). They educate their students to their beliefs to help maintain THEIR power. I think when it's used in that way the original concept of that religion is destroyed.

Religion came about to help people comprehend what they didn't understand and also function as a social guide(doing good deeds, kindness to your fellow man, etc.). Religion has evolved through the ages from multi-cultural polytheism, to polytheism to monotheism. I think or society is on a cusp of another religious evolution to either a personal spiritual belief or an atheistic view.

I'd comment on the movie aspects(set dressing and the like). But I think it's all irrelevant to what point you were trying to get across.
Let's just say it was well put together. :)

I look forward to seeing any future releases.

Posted on June 4, 2007
- jakechief

That was amazing. Loved it all. Can you please check out "African Journey" Thanks. :-)

Posted on June 4, 2007
- Goofparade

I could not imagine a more volatile topic for a film. Science and religion
have been sparring bedfellows for say a good.. six thousand years.

I think that many people go to church, know their pastor, pray and still do not actually believe that the world is merely 6 thousand years old. Religion in America also contains perfectly well adjusted moderates, who interpret the spirit of the message more closely than the minutea of the information.(the book was 2 thousand years old after all)

Conversely, science has certainly proven this planets' age but has not explained certain key theories that are at the very core of the argument.
"the Big Bang" theory for example. How did infinate matter contained in an infinately small size, come to be in the first place? Sounds rather unscientific to me...and yet I believe..
believing cannot to quantified to this black and white level so readily. There are so many more grey areas. Some obvious mistruths as you pointed out.. but also truths that have yet to be discovered. I must keep an open mind.

Perhaps these will be further explored in God Illusion Part 2.

cheers

gp

Posted on June 3, 2007
- Filmeadair

Although it was well shot, this piece seemed to be missing any particular creative direction.

First of all, staged "documentary" is a dangerous medium. In real documentary, we learn at least as much about the interviewer/interviewee from their manner as from their words, and less from from they say than from how they say it. How then are we to learn anything from the "interview" in this piece?

Secondly, where's the original material? Everything seems to arise from one source: Prof Dawkins. And it's unattributed!

Finally, while it may be entertaining (to some -- think Big Brother), a clash of extremes does not make for enlightening viewing. We cannot further debate or dialogue by having one extremist telling another extremist he's wrong: extremists by their nature are closed to debate.

Now I realise that a lot of people will question my description of L/Dawkins as an extremist, but consider this: he claims that religion is "at best" a perpetuation of ignorance, but the European university system was founded by the catholic church. Astronomy was studied by polytheistic Egyptians and Greeks, furthered by the Zoro-astrian scholars of the Middle-East and further refined by animistic, theistic and atheistic scholars the world over in their turn. I am not trying to demonstrate religion as the source of all knowledge (not by a long shot), but simply to illustrate that L/Dawkins arguments cannot be considered complete when he disregards historical facts that any truly educated atheist would have to accept. The real danger of showing only this extreme view is that it demonstrates a fallacy: that science and religion are in direct opposition, and that a religious person must disregard science as heresy. L/Dawkins is telling (uneducated) people: if you're religious, you have to hate science -- and as such he is in part to blame for the rise of ignorance in the religious community. Despite his claims/desires/intentions, he is *discouraging* people from educating themselves, by telling them that education will destroy their religion. That is something no rational atheist wants!

The attempts to sprinkle humour in ("from this... to this..." being a classic line, even if nothing new) were too far apart. This meant they missed the tone of the main film, and it was hard to work out what you wanted them to mean to us.

13 full minutes and I didn't feel like I heard anything new.

Posted on June 3, 2007
- qtigger

When I was a little boy, I attended a Catholic School. I remember asking one of the Nuns about dinosaurs one morning just before the start of class. She immediately pulled me into the classroom and struck the back of my hand with a ruler several times. She said it was blasphemy to question God. I remember thinking to myself, �??Then why did he give me a brain that works?�?? I was about 7 years old at the time.

Since then, I�??ve questioned everything about religion. Perhaps I was inspired by Sister Mary Shutyourmouth or just natural curiosity. I do not subscribe to any organized religion at this point in my life but I do have a belief in a God. Call me crazy because my head says one thing and my heart says another. To me, faith is a comfort. Like a cozy blanket on a cold night, or a lit candle in a dark room. It just makes me feel better. Maybe ignorance is bliss.

As for the film, I must say that I have treaded over all these arguments before in my life and probably agree with them as presented. But, I still like to believe there is something greater or divine in existence. Not necessarily as presented in any text.

The movie was a treat to watch. A little over exaggerated in some spots. The music was hauntingly beautiful and really sold the film. The free cam was okay, but I thought going from the bible to the speakers and back again (over and over) was a bit nauseating. The editing was tight and the film as a whole was solidly constructed. Well done.

It takes a lot of guts to present a film like this to the masses, considering the controversial subject matter. I have to applaud you for taking a chance not many of us would.

Cheers!

Posted on June 3, 2007
- jase180

"Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto."
-Buddha

A well thought out documentary with a valid position from the get go. The crowd that believes a Palestinian Jew had blonde hair and blue eyes (genetically impossible at the time, as the gene pool itself was smaller and more localized)aside, a book written by men will always be a book written by men. While religion serves to provide the masses with some sort of hope, it always provides those with more nefarious intentions an excuse. I am always fascinated by the zealots, and in this country, they are a dime a dozen. If only a true separation of church and state existed. All countries have them, the "enlightened" leaders of various religions waiting to take your soul on trade for faith and unbridled loyalty to the church. Yet, here we are in the 21st century and the most confusing and contradictory belief systems thrive. It amazes me.

Intelligent Design is neither.

I'm so very impressed Jazz by your solid and professional delivery of such a significant film. The free cam was top notch and skillful, the sound design flawless. A_N_D delivered a quality performance that never fell into a "parody" or sketch based delivery, it remained entirely legit throughout. Jaxx, you can walk away from viewing this film and just listen to the audio and i doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between this and any other Discovery Channel documentary. Well presented, never assuming and always to the point, this is a much needed breath of fresh air. I very much look forward to the next installment and offer up a well deserved "bravo" to you.

�??Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.�??

--Steven Weinberg

Posted on June 3, 2007
- DNR

A very well thought out and Incredibly done documentary Looking forward to future installments

Posted on June 3, 2007
- AxeCinema

For a while, I forgot it was made with TM. Pretty fascinating thing to be done with a simple piece of software. It was engrossing, and you did it well, bravery must be high to make a film like this.

I'm not sure how to comment, but this does give me much food thought for though. anything like that 5 stars.

Posted on June 2, 2007
- AnotherNewDawn

Taken tongue-in-cheek or taken as "gospel", this film challenges and challenges and challenges.

Anything this thought-provoking in a machinima film deserves five stars.

I was born and raised with religion, and have come to realize over all my years (and when I finally "got over" my religion...) that the greatest gift any "creator" could have ever given us is our intellect and ability to wonder and question EVERYTHING.

I'll bet money that the angriest, most unforgiving reviews for this film will all come from fundamentalists... ;)

That's really very funny, but in a very sad way.


A_N_D

Posted on June 2, 2007
- kwistufa

A very well made, written, & researched delve into 'beliefs'.
Great work.

Posted on June 2, 2007
- postmodernchuck

Cogently argued and meticulously designed, The God Illusion treads down a path many films do not dare cross, braving the ire and indignation of its opponents as it attempts to debunk theological theory through the lens of logic and science. Polarizing beyond belief, the movie splits audiences down to the center without fear of reproach and persecution, proffering a viewpoint that makes up the bitter pill that, frankly, might be something worth swallowing.

As a confirmed agnostic, I take no umbrage with Mr. Lawkins�?? argument �?? in fact, I find it in many ways refreshing �?? and yet I hope that others shall listen to what he has to say without resorting to histrionics, resentment, or righteous anger. His message is one that should not be dismissed as something as oblique as blasphemy or what-have-you, as this cheapens the human faculties of thoughts and reasons and replaces reasoned discourse with arm-waving sloganeering and quick-and-easy rhetorical tactics. Rather, this film should spark debate and fuel discourse on a topic that is quintessentially universal and stretching its shadow over all nations and persons.

An extraordinary achievement that is sure to generate thought and discussion. Well done.

Posted on June 2, 2007
- JosephKw

Oh my God...oops, I mean...oh my Science! I think it is the fallacy of many people to deem science as just another religion--as Jerry Falwell asks, would you rather believe in the man-made concept of evolution, or the God-given concept of creation? Evolution is not "made" by man, but only discovered by man through years of documented research. This new series brilliantly illustrates that difference, yet is presented in a fun and entertaining manner (with comedic touches sprinkled throughout). I have always believed the major contributions of religion to humanity as its moral guidance, and it seems that this topic will be touched upon in the next episode, so I applaud the creator of this series in having the forethought to mention that in the opening pilot. In sum, this show is on par with any nature or religious documentary currently airing on television, and is executed with both wit and wisdom.

Posted on June 2, 2007
- colingaiser

It was two weeks ago, and a distraught couple from my congregation had their niece taken away by the state. They had raised the girl for three years, giving her incredible parental love. It warmed my heart to watch the happy girl holding hands with her aunt and uncle as they skipped down the sidewalk. Eveyone in my congregation adored her, and understood what unbelievable 'parents' she had. But then her father was released from jail, and in turn the state released her from the loving arms of the couple.

While the experience was heartbreaking, it soon developed into a beautiful outcry of support led by the one thing everyone needs: faith. In church that Sunday, we prayed, we sang, and we comforted them. Faith was abundant that day, and the couple was greatful they could be part of something so special. Relgion and faith brought them to us. Prayer was their recovery. Without such a wonderful means of solace, what else would they have? Sometimes, faith is all you have. We can't let science destroy the emotionally soothing power of faith.

While science may deviate us from "ignorance" and "blind faith," it is only an unecessary tool to manifest questions that the common man doesn't need answered. I hate religious science, and every scientist that believes it's their duty to squander religion and prove every facet of it wrong. Religion is here to stay, because like I said above, we NEED faith! We need the clarification that someone, somewhere is guiding us.

While I disagree with everything discussed in the film, I'm not one of those ignorant reviewers who 1-stars a film because of a discrepancy. I've already given my review of the ideals. Here's my review of the film:

This is a plausible documentary. While something of this depth has never before been attempted via TMO, I still didn't feel a sense of originality. There was nothing shocking, nothing revolting, or nothing reprehensible to drive the point home--it was just an angry scientist belting out scientific jargon that never quite reached the level of "interesting."

The scene that really bugged me was Richard's interview with Jerry Falwell. It was flawed on so many levels, never becoming the shocking conclusion you hoped it to be. To begin, your portrayal of Cristians was revolting! We are not cold-blooded, gun-wielding, frail maniacs who cripple and the threat of opposition. Your 'manipulation' of this staged interview was suspicious, and I'm contemplating notifying the university and asking for this interview on record. Secondly, you never actually proved anything! While you continuously referred to 'years' as your proof, there was never any underlying proof of YOUR explaination! Your facts sound just as acceptable as Christians. Show us please...don't just TELL us. And lastly, we are taught all facets science in school. Don't make assumptions about American education...we've been forced to learn the 'scientific' facts about evolution, dinosaurs, and creation since Kindergarten. Liberty University is not a platform for America's educational system.

Your points may be valid to some ears, but mine spat out every one of your scientific 'facts.' I understand the reasoning and the logic, but I still believe that humans NEED faith. I'd love to see Richard Lawkins face some adversity. Does he have a congregation of faithful believers he can turn to for undying support? He's a cold man, and maybe he deserves to be left faithlessly in the rain. Meanwhile, we'll be in fellowship hall, singing beautiful hymns and finding our foothold on faith---and he is more then welcome if he ever needs solace from his insensate lifestyle.

Posted on June 2, 2007
- Ralfduran

I gotta admit that this is well made documentary with great pacing and a interesting concept. However, there is some things that really bothers me and that take away from the overal enjoyment.

For one thing, your documentary potrays religious people as a bunch of intolerant and unintelligent people, and the fact that they is the reason and ONLY reason til why the world is such a dark and terrible place to live on. And I agree. There is a lot of bad things coming out from religion, but in the same way, there is a lot of positive things that comes with religion and more importantly, faith. Dont forget that belife and faith are two things that put meaning into peoples life .. sure, there have always been a lot of money and coruption involved with religion as it has been in science and that is awful, of course. But dont forget that a coin has two sides. If you had included some self-criticism and really thought about What Science have done for us instead of like now, potraying religion without a multifaced side to it, this documentary would have worked so much smother and I as a viewer would have taken your words with a bigger attention.

Im not religious, even though I certanly believes in something. But you tell us what is WRONG and thats RIGHT with out enough material to even give it a thought. But like I said. A well made film, and for that I have to give you a 4. Great job

Posted on June 2, 2007
- MefuneAkira

A very brave and well executed documentary on the worlds biggest delusional vice.

Professional, clear and undeniable facts are what makes this documentary worth watching. Facts of evolution, physical evidence of the impossibilities of the Bible and logical reasoning by intelligent human beings are essential to the conclusion that religion is nothing more than a crutch, similar to alcohol and drug dependence, to cope with life�??s difficulties. When someone is dying, religion dependants prey for recovery, yet they go to the hospital for treatment. When the ailment is cured, the religious dependants thank god and not the doctors or the millions of biologists, scientists and professors who research, discover and produce the life saving medications and medical procedures. (Yes, I had cancer and now I am in remission. I thanked my doctors for my recovery and questioned the religious dependents who tried to convince me it was "gods doing". My retort? "Every man, women and child died from cancer before the 1970's, where was god then?" That�??s when they are at a loss for words and walked away.)

I have research Christianity my whole life and know many need to believe there is someone watching over and protecting them at all times or there lives may fall apart due to knowing they are on their own and must think for themselves. However, I am a �??pro-human being�?? activist and know if every religious dependant took all of their time, effort and money they spend on religion and utilized it to helping others in the world, instead of feeding their dependants of a delusional safety blanket, the Earth as we know it would be the Heaven they are seeking in the first place.

In Africa alone, a child dies every 5 seconds from Malaria, AIDS and starvation. What is more important, the 2 million dollar church or feeding and medicating 4,000,000 dying infants? Religious dependants ALWAYS roll their eyes and will never answer this question, because like many faults in the Bible, the answer would only further prove to the world that religion is nothing but a selfish, socially dangerous and an environmentally unproductive waste of time.

The bible states very clearly that god says owning, beating, raping and trading slaves is acceptable. It also states that anyone who is gay, a disbeliever, a disobedient child, a blasphemer, an adulterer or anyone who works on Sunday �??SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH�?? (Exodus 20: 8-9, Exodus 31 verse 15, Deut 17:2-7, 2 Chron 15:12-13 , Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Lev 24:16 , Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 25:44, Leviticus 20:10 , Leviticus 20:13 )

This statement is of my own opinion and not of all members of L.M.A.O. Studios. I speak my mind, not to offend anyone, but to hopefully make the reader take a moment of pause and do something religious dependants refuse to attempt�?�Think for yourself, research your beliefs and question your doubts!

A great film Jazzx and you have my full support my friend! Bring on Part 2!

Mefune Akira
L.M.A.O. Studios

Posted on June 2, 2007
- norriefpb

Dear Points of View

Why oh why can't we have more programs like this on JXTV? In the light of the recent debate about "dumbing down" it is refreshing to watch an intelligent, thought provoking and entertaining documentary at last. It was reminiscent of the classic Horizons from the 70's and 80's, with just the right amount of levity to offset the disturbing light cast upon the fundamentalists featured.
Dr Lawkins was an exceptionally good presenter, clear, concise and measured. Mr Falwell came across as deluded yet sincere.

All in all a first rate piece of television, my congratulations to all involved and I look forward to Part 2

Norrie Sinclair (license payer)

Posted on June 2, 2007
- NUKESTER

A Fascinating Documentary with Tongue in cheek comedic values. The narration was well excecuted and I found myself concentrating, processing and listening in like I do with all documentaries featuring Sir David Attenborough as the narrator. This was a refreshing, satisfying break from the norm and I cant wait to see the next episode, so for now...

Nuke Well in the Illusiion!

Posted on June 2, 2007