Documentary: The Unbelievers (Official Trailer)

[wurd2]

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins have teamed up to travel the world and engage a series of public talks and debates in the interest of promoting science and reason over religion and superstition. Their goals are to inspire people to think critically about the nature of reality and instill within them a sense of excitement and wonder as to what systematic and unfettered investigation has revealed—and will continue to reveal—about our deeply mysterious and fascinating universe.

I suspect I am part of a small minority of members here who look forward to seeing this film, but I am still very interested in the negative feedback of those who stand opposed to this documentary or would rather scientists not engage in these public courses of action to market science at the expense of religion.

The documentary has already been released in Canada. I'm not sure if it has been released here yet.

Here is the official website:
The Unbelievers - Coming 2013

Here is a link to film information on IMDb:
The Unbelievers (2013) - IMDb

Here is the official trailer:

[youtube_browser]ZxDLkoK8vQQ[/youtube_browser]

And here are a few interviews with Krauss and Dawkins about the new documentary:

[youtube_browser]wjeD-9LcfWM[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]VJ5RIOuM3aE[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]drAPtj93dwE[/youtube_browser]

.

Disclaimer:
For the love of God and the sake of our hard-working moderators, please keep any conversation here civil. But by all means be reasonably rude and blunt and criticize to your gentle heart's content.

.

 

[spray'n mach 1]

I will watch it but I have an open mind

 

[Ls2BluGoat]

Can't wait!

 

[NasteeNate]

This sounds like they are trying to evangelize the world, just how Christ spread his ministry a little over 2000 years ago. I also find it interesting that they used the title unbelievers when this term is used by Christians all the time. Just things i'm noticing. Interesting.

 

[98SVTContour98]

i would LOVE to see Dawkins debate William Lane Craig, but sadly Dawkins is full of excuses.

 

[wurd2]

i would LOVE to see Dawkins debate William Lane Craig, but sadly Dawkins is full of excuses.

What subject or topic would you like to see these two debate over?

.

 

[wurd2]

For what it's worth:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

In short, Dawkins refuses to share a platform with Craig because Craig is an apologist for the God-commanded genocide of the Canaanites. In the article, Dawkins quotes Craig's justification of the slaughter of innocent children. Like Dawkins, I too found it rather disgusting. Dawkins also points out that he turns down hundreds of debate invitations every year with opponents more worthy than Craig.

.

 

[7.62x51]

[youtube_browser]UIHiggcVZvY[/youtube_browser]

 

[VNOMIS]

[youtube_browser]UIHiggcVZvY[/youtube_browser]

Richard Dawkins comes off as a complete and utter pompus douche in that video.

 

[wurd2]

Richard Dawkins comes off as a complete and utter pompus douche in that video.

It is quite easy to make someone look this way with cutting and editing.

There is a very good reason you will *never* see any uncut and unedited interviews with any of the scientists that starred in the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed film. According to the scientists, they were lied to about the name and intent of the film. Such are the depths that some religious folks will stoop to for the sake of lying for Jesus.

The real dolt in that interview is Ben Stein. Dawkins' story of how he was coerced into answering questions he didn't want to is entertaining and reveals the desperation of certain believers.

.

 

[98SVTContour98]

What subject or topic would you like to see these two debate over?

.

idk, any of the topics WLC has covered with his other debates w "Non-Believers".

For what it's worth:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

In short, Dawkins refuses to share a platform with Craig because Craig is an apologist for the God-commanded genocide of the Canaanites. In the article, Dawkins quotes Craig's justification of the slaughter of innocent children. Like Dawkins, I too found it rather disgusting. Dawkins also points out that he turns down hundreds of debate invitations every year with opponents more worthy than Craig.

.

I like this write up by a fellow skeptic regarding dawkins' excuses: Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist | Daniel Came | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Keep in mind, this goes way back to 2007, iirc, that's when Dawkins was first making excuses (bethinking.org - What is Apologetics? - Dawkins Refuses God-Debate with William Lane Craig) , it wasn't until 2011 - after a handful of excuses from prior years - that he came out with the whole Canaanites excuse.

 

[FATlaws]

How pompous of any human to think it was created by a divine power, in his image, the only ones to exist of their kind, and when they die they believe they live forever in a utopian place?

 

[wurd2]

I like this write up by a fellow skeptic regarding dawkins' excuses: Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist | Daniel Came | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Keep in mind, this goes way back to 2007, iirc, that's when Dawkins was first making excuses (bethinking.org - What is Apologetics? - Dawkins Refuses God-Debate with William Lane Craig) , it wasn't until 2011 - after a handful of excuses from prior years - that he came out with the whole Canaanites excuse.

I respect Dawkins' reasons for not bothering to share a platform with Craig. If you want to believe that a world renowned scientist is afraid to debate a theologian, you're more than welcome to. As for me, I don't see a single good reason to believe this is the case, especially given who Dawkins has debated.

.

 

[wurd2]

98SVTContour98, it appears that Daniel Come sympathizes with Craig's justification of genocide and the murder of innocent children. How disgusting.

Daniel Come is also *wrong* as to why Richard Dawkins does not infer there to be an intelligent designer. It's called a complete lack of evidence Mr. Come, first and foremost. Dawkins does *not* leverage the infinite regression problem of an intelligent designer to dismiss such a case.

Why can't any of Dawkins' religious critics get his arguments right? Perhaps they don't actually read his material? Or maybe they are too busy watching Ben Stein interviews, cut and edited into misrepresentation.

.

 

[98SVTContour98]

I respect Dawkins' reasons for not bothering to share a platform with Craig. If you want to believe that a world renowned scientist is afraid to debate a theologian, you're more than welcome to. As for me, I don't see a single good reason to believe this is the case, especially given who Dawkins has debated.

.

ok

 

[wurd2]

By the way, having said what I said, I too would like to see Dawkins debate Craig.

.

 

[98SVTContour98]

By the way, having said what I said, I too would like to see Dawkins debate Craig.

.

:beer:

 

[gamebred26]

If I want to learn about science I go study the bible...it has all the facts I need.

..said no sane person ever..

 

[98SVTContour98]

If I want to learn about science I go study the bible...it has all the facts I need.

..said no sane person ever..

:lol:

I don't think many people who actually believe the Bible to be accurate would disagree with your statement :shrug:

 

[gamebred26]

:lol:

I don't think many people who actually believe the Bible to be accurate would disagree with your statement :shrug:

You would think right? Dont be so sure...