The main bits that I have a complaint about - Root of All Evil? (2006) Discussion

[–] robbiepaton 18 years ago

I understand your point but the problem is by accepting what you might refer to as 'mild' religion, you allow the breeding of fanaticism. That, indeed, is his whole point.

How can you possibly point out to a fanatical troublemaker the error of his 'misguided' ways, when at the same time saying you believe in the same supernatural 'being' fairy tale (abiet a 'nice' version)?

Good and rationality DOES NOT come from religious texts. Try reading them and listen to some of the absolutists if you want convincing. Morals are governed by the society of the day, and are regularily kept in check by the majority, religious or not.

"If you disagree with me, convince me. Don't just throw a rock at my head."

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sgabin 18 years ago

I was proud of him. I felt like punching Haggard in the mouth for talking about how the lack of knowledge is what the real problem is. Meanwhile, Haggard obviously doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

Richard Dawkins is my philisophical hero at the moment.

reply

[–] csavemark 17 years ago

Then you're just as arrogant as Dawkins, which is not good to be if you want to convince others of atheism/evolution etc.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] csavemark 17 years ago

I'm sure not everyone who believes in evolution knows the current theories of the evolution of the eye, so it applicable to Darwinists too.

I believe that one shouldn't be arrogant as Dawkins was when he met Haggard.

P.S. I'm a Darwinist and atheist.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] G-Com 17 years ago

Ironically I could make a test on the bible, and I'm sure Haggard would fail it. Never trust a man who claims he knows everything about something.

Agreed!

I was only mildly familiar with Richard Dawkins. The episodes are outstanding. I'd love to see them on DVD. Perhaps Dr. Dawkins could even add new material.

reply

[–] xbrianx 17 years ago

I don't think religion is the problem. I think that anyone is allowed to practice religion is. Instead of looking for people to convert who have the ability to think rationally, religion recruits nuts.

It's the same problem with driving. There are too many people driving around who aren't capable of rational thought. They get mad when someone cuts them off instead of thinking, "Oh that guy must not have seem." Then they think it's some personal attack and they have to get even. It's the same thing with religion.

You think back to someone like Issac Newton who was devoutly religious and scientific marvel. He worshipped god and looked at the world rationally and he figured things out. Today most people are religious just because they are afraid of hell, not because they looked at the alternatives and found the idea of a creator more appealing.

reply

[–] tsd-4 17 years ago

"think back to someone like Issac Newton who was devoutly religious and scientific marvel. He worshipped god and looked at the world rationally and he figured things out."

Thinking at this huge genius, I cannot stop to remark how huge and powerful the delusion is. He spent a little time of his life on science, with great results. He spent a good deal of his life with unscientific things like religion and alchemy. The results from scientific thinking were big, the results from delusion were zero.

reply

[–] Dali-Fan 17 years ago

Recently, here, on the east coast of Canada, a muslim couple decided to press charges that their express freedom of religion had been violated. Wait for it . . . they wanted to put up a satelitte dish in a unit that violates dishes, claiming that if they were unable to watch Arabic TV that their religious freedoms were being infringed . . . .

While I have nothing in particular against muslims (I just loathe religion altogether), I think these two got the slap in the face they deserved: No dish, and go to the bloody mosque like everyone else.

reply

[–] Dali-Fan 17 years ago

Recently, here, on the east coast of Canada, a muslim couple decided to press charges that their express freedom of religion had been violated. Wait for it . . . they wanted to put up a satelitte dish in a unit that violates dishes, claiming that if they were unable to watch Arabic TV that their religious freedoms were being infringed . . . .

While I have nothing in particular against muslims (I just loathe religion altogether), I think these two got the slap in the face they deserved: No dish, and go to the bloody mosque like everyone else.

reply

[–] JWJanneck 17 years ago

"I believe that one shouldn't be arrogant as Dawkins was when he met Haggard."

Dawkins has his faults, but this wasn´t arrogance.

Haggard tried to lecture Dawkins on a topic that (a) Haggard knew next to nothing about and that (b) Dawkins has written several excellent books on. It´s like a Kindergarten child talking to an astronomer about the stars and the moon. Dawkins just told him how it is. In fact, I think if anything Haggard´s testosterone gave him a lot more breathing room than his wits deserved.

Dawkins could have embarrassed Haggard even more by drawing him out further and slaughtering him a little more artfully, but that does not seem to be his style.

-- j

reply

[–] rjcarr 17 years ago

The first adjective a religous person would use to describe an outspoken atheist like Dawkins is "arrogant". As an atheist myself I've been thinking about why this is and here is the reason I've come up with.

When an atheist and a theist have a debate, say about evolution, the theist can only state things that he has read in the bible, most of which are falsified by science. The athiest, on the other hand, can use this scientific evidence that has been coroborated by literally 1000s of scientists and speak very confidently in what he knows to be true.

This confidence intimidates the theists and comes off as arrogance, when I really don't think that is it at all. Dawkins disagrees with religion, but he doesn't think he is better than anyone else. He even describes religion as a virus ... who would willingly contract a virus?

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

Excellent post, rjcarr!

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

reply

[–] Guardia 14 years ago

Actually, the default position of science and scientists is that of "we don't know". To call this arrogant is supreme ignorance. The default position of faith is that of providing a total answer. Who seems more arrogant there?

Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

reply

[–] lukaslukas 17 years ago

The Church cooperated with the Nazis and Fascist during and even after WWII so his comparison is accurate.

"But you won't fool the children of the revolution."

reply

[–] Wyrmis 17 years ago

But he did not say "Watching your sermons brings to mind that time the Catholic church (and other sects) was the looking the other way and even occasionally tossing an assist while Jewish and Protestants were persecuted", so in the way he worded it, it feels out of place.

My main problem is the use of "Nazi" as a buzzword of attack.

To claim that Ted Haggard is pro-censorship, pro-control and pro-bigotry (at least in his public claims against homosexuality, if not his private) is accurate. It might even be accurate to say the he would back a fascist regime if the political alignment (and "religious" one) was correct. To bandy out references about Hitler's regime as a catch-all is not.

Si Vales, Valeo.

reply

[–] XrayAtheist 17 years ago

That makes 3 *beep* morons who have posted *beep* on this board now.

reply

[–] daniel_l_v 17 years ago

I just watched both episodes.
I am an atheist, I have never truly believed in God, but I have taken years of immersion in science to develop my current position.

Here are my thoughts on the show:

- Dawkins made too many links between violence and religion. I don't think it is as clear-cut as that. I don't know enough about the history of some long-standing conflicts to know for sure.

- People of faith are almost impossible to sway by science, they are stuck in their mindset. Dawkins will not sway them, despite his best efforts.

- I believe the "indoctrination of children" to be a fresh and interesting argument. After all, imposing a belief system or knowledge about our cosmic origins to a young child before that child has been educated and has learnt about science and the Universe seems grossly irresponsible.

- The argument that religion supplies people with morality is deeply offensive and wrong to me. I don't believe in a higher being, but i'm a good person. My morals are (I believe) shaped by multiple factors, including my inherited genetics (which have positive natural selection advantages), my parents and family, people around me and my own innate sense of what is right and what is wrong.

My summary is this:

3 humans life out a full life.
1 human does good because he believes his God will reward him for it.
1 human does good because he fears that otherwise his God will punish him for it.
The other human does good because he/she thinks it is the right thing to do.

Who is the "good" human?

reply

[–] jomboe 17 years ago

on daniel_l_v's comments:

Indeed it is not as clear-cut as that. And implying that religious extremists represent the main stream is just plain odd.

By the way: Those with ultimate faith in SCIENCE are as "stuck" in their mindset as people with other kinds of faith.

Indoctrination of children:
Here's a complicated issue: How is giving an innocent kid a sense of security irresponsible? Are you raising the importance of your own subjective knowledge above the kids' mental stability? Since your knowledge or the scientific one is based on theories and hence as subjective as say, the christian belief, how can you ever pick one to teach children? You can never see all the repercussions of teaching one if you only consider what's informationally correct to you.

And what is good then? You're lucky to have had surroundings benevolent to getting what is, I hope, a healthy morality. But it is still subjective - you make your own laws. No one but yourself stops you from stealing. I ask: Is this kind of subjective moral superiority really good? Why?

Moreover, have you really studied e.g. the root of christian ethics, the gospels - by yourself, not absorbing what someone else said - so you can say what's to you wrong in them, and why they shouldn't be taught?

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

"By the way: Those with ultimate faith in SCIENCE are as "stuck" in their mindset as people with other kinds of faith."

""Since your knowledge or the scientific one is based on theories and hence as subjective as say, the christian belief,..."

That's all such overused and nonsensical rhetoric BS.

If you are arguing that people who value sceience are 'just' as anything as those who believe fairytales, that means that YOU cannot tell the difference between empirical evidence and fanatasy. How sad for you... don't bother to type out your answer on your empirically created computer, please just fantasize about responding and I'll pick it up...

"How is giving an innocent kid a sense of security irresponsible?"

You do not need to lie to your children about how the world works to make them feel secure. In fact, in the long run, it could make them less secure about your honesty or intelligence.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

reply

[–] jomboe 17 years ago

Ask yourself if saying 'NNNNGH' and offensively throwing around bigot posts without a single backing statement to an argument will ever help you.

<i>--"You do not need to lie about how the world works"</i>
Since the camps are divided on whether God exists, who can say it's a lie? And don't resort, again, to the dull answer "scientists" since even they are divided on the matter. Instead, give me the deductions on how your empirical evidence contradicts the existence of God.

And how again would you explain the world to make a kid feel as much security?

<i>-- "If you are arguing that people who value sceience are 'just' as anything as those who believe fairytales, that means that YOU cannot tell the difference between empirical evidence and fanatasy."</i>

No. I meant that if you base a claim about the non-existence of God on the lack of empirical evidence, you are merely believing that there is no God based on what you didn't see. An example from the science world: Not until recently did quantum physicists find evidence that such a thing as a multiverse (multidimensional universe) might exist. (Relating to photon behavior studies.) Should they have demonized all thought of the multiverse theory (or "fantasy") because of their simple ineptitude to see or measure the leads?

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

Without backing? You claim that our body of scientific knowledge is *just as* subjective as stories- and you accuse me of not backing up my posts?

"Since the camps are divided on whether God exists, who can say it's a lie? And don't resort, again, to the dull answer "scientists" since even they are divided on the matter. Instead, give me the deductions on how your empirical evidence contradicts the existence of God...No. I meant that if you base a claim about the non-existence of God on the lack of empirical evidence, you are merely believing that there is no God based on what you didn't see. "

There is NO evidence for god and no reason to even consider the possibility, unless you want to consider any imagined idea to be a reflection of reality. If you are going to make this argument, you would have to make the same argument for fairies, unicorns, and Santa Claus. You can't prove the nonexistance of anything- and that's all you've got. It's the same ABSENCE of evidence for the existence of Zeus or the boogeyman. You're a hypocrite if you do not argue as strongly for these creatures as you do for the christian god.

What is a lie, is teaching kids that things can or have happened without ANY evidence that these things happened. The earth is NOT 6,000 years old. There is no evidene for special creation. There is no evidence that people come back from the dead, nor is there any evidence that imaginary creatures can impregnate real human women.

"And how again would you explain the world to make a kid feel as much security?"

By telling them the truth about the universe and our knowledge of it.

"An example from the science world: Not until recently did quantum physicists find evidence that such a thing as a multiverse (multidimensional universe) might exist. (Relating to photon behavior studies.) Should they have demonized all thought of the multiverse theory (or "fantasy") because of their simple ineptitude to see or measure the leads?"

And we will continue to find evidence for things we previously weren't aware of. The key word here is *evidence*.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

reply

[–] jomboe 17 years ago

You're calling the Bible a bunch of "stories". Eye witness accounts seem to work in court, and you would certainly support their use. But Jesus must be a big hoax, since these eye witnesses lived 2,000 years ago.

And then you go stating implications on the age of the world as religious facts. Good for you. But the Bible never explicitly says the world is 6,000 years old. This was interpretation. Can I say it either? Does it matter? All this interpretation-related nitpicking really only leads you away of the most important message of Christianity. Or do you think all of that spreading love and empathy is a bitch, too?

Fairies and unicorns are a fun image. Why don't you go dig up the holy book of trolls and convince me of its divine nature - THEN we can talk about your "fairy tale argument's" validity. And do read the book before posting here thinking you know it.

You see, there's plenty of evidence in the book you trampled on. I'd advise you to read the core of christianity - the gospels - and then return to point out the exact parts which you have a problem with. I'll be happy to hear you out.

"There is no evidene for special creation -- no reason to consider the possibility"

Look around you. Maybe you think life is the product of chance... sounds weird to me, since the probability of spontaneous cell generation in a life-void environment is close enough to zero to not really matter. Think jackpotting in the lottery 10^9 times in the row. How probable is that? And spontaneous cell generation is not enough, since a lone cell dies fast. It would need to spontaneously regenerate. And then there's the question of how DNA came into the picture. It's all a sequence of outrageous improbability following one another, and you still think you're the king of "rational"?

Take a reality check. Not long ago scientists thought Earth was the centre of the universe. How are they more right now regarding dig, -absolute- knowledge? I'm not saying science is somehow wrong, on the contrary, I love it. But in reality, to have a viewpoint of the world based SOLELY on science, you have to BELIEVE their implicit conclusions are 100% right, and THAT was my point - your point of view is based on belief as well, hence you're dissing yourself. Poor analogies of trolls are no excuse.

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

Eye witnesses? You call writing about someone a hundred or so years AFTER they're dead, an 'eye witness' account? Even if they had written 'at the time' it doesn't make stories true. Do you really believe all the stories people tell you? Yes, I see, you're critieria for belief is siply being told to believe. Someone says it's true- so you believe it's true. So the Iliad then, all fact to you? How quaint...

Yep- I think both the LITERAL meaning and interpretations of the bible include impossible, fantastic elements that are NO different than any other fairy tale.

"Or do you think all of that spreading love and empathy is a bitch, too?"

Religion is not required to teach love and empathy.

"Fairies and unicorns are a fun image. Why don't you go dig up the holy book of trolls and convince me of its divine nature - THEN we can talk about your "fairy tale argument's" validity. And do read the book before posting here thinking you know it."

So again- you're critieria is simply the existence of written record? So again, you must think The Iliad, and other such NON-CHRISTIAN stories are true? How about all of the Mesopatamian myths- all in writing, all considered *holy* ( like that means anythign). If you think a written record is all that's required to make fairytales true, you can find religious myths from all over the world that MUST be true from your perspective.

"Look around you. Maybe you think life is the product of chance... sounds weird to me, since the probability of spontaneous cell generation in a life-void environment is close enough to zero to not really matter. Think jackpotting in the lottery 10^9 times in the row. How probable is that?"

Pretty darn likely over a billion years in the conditions that existed.

I find it hard to believe that YOU don't believe it, given that people write about it...

"Take a reality check."

Okay- you're turn: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

"Not long ago scientists thought Earth was the centre of the universe."

So?

"How are they more right now regarding dig, -absolute- knowledge?"

? That's doesn't make any sense...

"I'm not saying science is somehow wrong, on the contrary, I love it. But in reality, to have a viewpoint of the world based SOLELY on science..."

Science is the study of the universe. (Period) So when you say this, you are implying that I should base my understadning of the universe on somehting other than the study of the universe.

"...you have to BELIEVE their implicit conclusions are 100% right,"

Nope, you don't.

"and THAT was my point - your point of view is based on belief as well, hence you're dissing yourself. Poor analogies of trolls are no excuse."

Poor analogy? You have done nothing to address that analogy but to say you require written stories for things to be considered *true.*

And again, you're point is ridiculous. Your point is that you can't tell the difference between evidence and stories.

reply

[–] jomboe 17 years ago

"Yes, I see, you're critieria for belief is siply being told to believe."

Odd statement, since who told you your science was right if not someone else? You went digging yourself? Maybe you've been messing around with carbon dating as well? In the end most people, if not all, select what to believe from the things presented to them.

"You call writing about someone a hundred or so years AFTER they're dead"

Okay, so curse those contemporary cold war scholars as well. It's already been almost 20 years since it's unofficial end, so everyone's forgotten what it was all about. BTW, the Gospel of Mark is dated only around 20-30 years after Jesus's death whereas the material is younger. The people who knew Jesus were still kickin'.

Still think it's a story? Numerous writers just happened to come up with the same plot and main characters at the same time. Dang that plagiarism!

As for Iliad, don't confuse a cultural poetic epic with religious literature.

Furthermore, the Bible isn't a science book. The point is not how Jesus defied Newtonian gravity by ascending to the heavens, the point is in the morals and the message it presents. And the fact that you're missing this over trivial matters is just sad.

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

"Odd statement, since who told you your science was right if not someone else?"

Nope. My senses tell me it's *right*. Science is based on empirical evidence.

"You went digging yourself? Maybe you've been messing around with carbon dating as well? In the end most people, if not all, select what to believe from the things presented to them."

Yes, I've been digging and I'm familiar enough with carbon dating (so you're complaining about recent scientific knowledge as well ). Science is based on observations about the universe. I do find that more credible thn inventing your world view through imaginations.

"Okay, so curse those contemporary cold war scholars as well. It's already been almost 20 years since it's unofficial end, so everyone's forgotten what it was all about. BTW, the Gospel of Mark is dated only around 20-30 years after Jesus's death whereas the material is younger. The people who knew Jesus were still kickin'."

First, please show me the evidence that the manuscript dates to that time. Second, so what? Again, saying something doesn't make it true. We know about the cold war from a HUGE amount of evidence, there is no evidence WHATSOEVER that the *miracles* attributed to Jesus ever occurred. At BEST you could argue that he might have been a real person (though it was/is quite common to use fictional charcaters to teach stories...such as with the other gods and heroes of that time).

"Still think it's a story? Numerous writers just happened to come up with the same plot and main characters at the same time. Dang that plagiarism!"

Okay, AGAIN KID, the exact SAME can be said for the other gods and heroes of the past-similiar stories written by different authors because they are writing about cultural beliefs! So what??

"As for Iliad, don't confuse a cultural poetic epic with religious literature."

COP-OUT! Religion is part of culture (no separation), and frankly you're an idiot if you think the Iliad wasn't a reflection of religious belief of that time.

"Furthermore, the Bible isn't a science book."

No kidding.

"The point is not how Jesus defied Newtonian gravity by ascending to the heavens, the point is in the morals and the message it presents. And the fact that you're missing this over trivial matters is just sad."

Well, you're backpeddling quite a bit here. If you're just talking about using the bible for feel-good moral stories, that's a totally different topic than you orginally stated. However you are SICK and TWISTED person if you are going to defend the bible as guide to decency. Or have you not actually read it?

Again, it's not necessary to use fairytales to teach morality.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

reply

[–] jomboe 17 years ago

"My senses tell me it's *right*."

There you go. It's subjective. And it only took 4 whipping rounds of replies.

"inventing your world view through imaginations."

You make it sound like I negate all of science just because there are disagreements in small parts of it. Science is good as a part of one's views. A part. Snap out of these conclusions you jump into.

"evidence that the manuscript dates to that time"

You patronize me and present childish statements like this. Why don't you provide a video of the first bacterial cell forming. Although that's impossible, you can read history and go with your "senses". And shame on you for calling historians liars.

"defend the bible as guide to decency"
Yes, it certainly makes ME "sick and twisted" if you don't know how to read the Bible. This just shows you haven't studied Christian dogma. You're dissing a pear when the culprit is an apple. The indecencies you refer to are part of the Old Covenant between Moses and God and not all of them have anything to do with the New Covenant involving Jesus. But I guess that just proves the old adage - the louder you yell, the less you know.

"it's not necessary to use fairytales to teach morality."

Sure, you can go and teach any morals you like. But what's the content? Who says they'll be any good? The problem with man-made laws are that you can change them as you go along to a point where they no longer serve any purpose. You'll decide not to go *beep* around, and on a whim you do, no one cares. Where do you find your morality? The answer is: You can do whatever you please. You don't have to think about the consequences. The result, unfortunately, is chaos.

However, can you debate that the morals presented in the Gospels are somehow faulty? You can't. They're simply perfect. They would lead to the best possible harmony in the society if people would only do their best to adhere to them, even people calling themselves Christians.

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

"There you go. It's subjective. And it only took 4 whipping rounds of replies."

You don't know what subjective means...

"You make it sound like I negate all of science just because there are disagreements in small parts of it. Science is good as a part of one's views. A part. Snap out of these conclusions you jump into."

Understadning the universe is only good for part of one's world view? That's funny!

"You patronize me and present childish statements like this. Why don't you provide a video of the first bacterial cell forming. Although that's impossible, you can read history and go with your "senses". And shame on you for calling historians liars."

Patronize you? Can't you back up your claim? I'm not calling historians liars you fool- historians are scientists.

"he indecencies you refer to are part of the Old Covenant between Moses and God and not all of them have anything to do with the New Covenant involving Jesus. But I guess that just proves the old adage - the louder you yell, the less you know."

Another rationalizing cop-out. So the Ten Commandments became null and void when the New Testament was written- or just the parts of the OT that weren't socially popular? The god in OT was wrong? a different god?

"Sure, you can go and teach any morals you like. But what's the content? Who says they'll be any good?"

You really need religion to understand that it's wrong to hurt people? How frightening...

"However, can you debate that the morals presented in the Gospels are somehow faulty?"

Yes, I find a lot of fault with the idea that a woman is to her husband as the church is to christ, among other things. but again- you're changing your argument if you are now claiming that the moral fables are what you are defending.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

reply

[–] T-Mex 17 years ago

"Sure, you can go and teach any morals you like. But what's the content? Who says they'll be any good?"

You really need religion to understand that it's wrong to hurt people? How frightening...

Ask him how the rest of the world came to pretty much the same conclusions without the Bible. Or does he think the rest of the world (where Christianity didn't really show up until the last 100 year or so) have lived under complete chaos and anarchy until missionaries showed up.

If the general 'morals' people live under in the whole world can be applied to anything, it would, ironically, be Darwin's principles...

"Jesus is coming. Look busy."

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

Ah, yes...he seems to be unable to respond (there's a shocker!).

"If the general 'morals' people live under in the whole world can be applied to anything, it would, ironically, be Darwin's principles..."

So true, so true!

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

reply

[–] fandoaow 17 years ago

This discussion amuses me :)

I can't wait for an answer ^_^

reply

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

It would be fun, but for some reason I don't think there'll be an answer .

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SALTER-pt 15 years ago

The other thing I wasn't quite happy about was the implication that any bit religious is the equivalent to some of the extremist he showed

I don't really believe that's where Dawkins is coming from at all. He has colleagues that are fiercely religious, yet also fiercely opposed to intelligent design, for example. RD seems to understand and promote religious moderation, although he (rightly, IMO) points out the obvious problems of contradiction in being a religious moderate, where the moderation seemingly flies in the face of scriptural dogma.

I don't know if you've got the DVD collection "Rational Thought", but on it there's a 2-disc compilation of complete interviews with those involved with the doc. "Root of all Evil?", including an excellent 30-minute interview with Bishop Richard Harries, an influencial religious (Anglican) moderate). If anything, Dawkins poses these matters as Devil's Advocate. The responses are enlightening and fascinating, as to how any discrepancies are reconciled. I didn't get the sense of any animosity that Dawkins presented about religious moderation, outside of his rationalist rejection of scriptural religion as a whole.

If you can get hold of the DVD collection, it's well worth a look for the uncut interviews alone.

Proud member of COW-DJ

reply

[–] Herowithgreeneyesandblue 12 years ago

The subject was just too big for a 90 minute show. All you can do is pick a few easy targets and hopefully get people thinking. The complete absence of Eastern Religion was the thing I missed most although it had a hundred flaws and I think most of them were due to the time constraints. Overall it was pretty good and I wasn't expecting it to be. Not after seeing another documentary, The Enemies Of Reason? which was an embarrassment to all parties involved.

I like waking up in the morning not knowing who I'll meet or where I'll end up: The Titanic

reply