...they do not believe in the existence of God. They simply thought that what they get is because of hard work.

Should be called "God In The Gaps: The Movie." It's that same old, tired argument we've been seeing for over 100 years, "We don't know the answer, so God must have done it." There's no "gotcha" moment, there's no irrefutable logic, and there is certainly not "one scientific question" that "destroys atheism" as the movie's tag line would suggest. It's just more of the same stuff we've seen from Roy Comfort: badly edited interviews, pointless questions, and conclusions based on one single book.

If your goal is either laugh at the stupidity of it all, or to whip yourself up into a logical frenzy, by all means see this movie, otherwise avoid it at all costs.

"The Atheist Delusion" is your standard Ray Comfort street interviews. This time his argument is one we've heard before, about creation needing a creator. Because a book couldn't make itself, DNA couldn't make itself, therefore, God, and specifically, the god of the Bible, did it. Atheists, we are told (and this we've also heard before) know that there is a god but deny it because they like fornication and pornography.

"The Atheist Delusion" is a full hour of the same old creationist arguments, street interviews and eventually Comfort's old "Are you a good person?" routine. It offers nothing we haven't seen or heard dozens of times before. On the plus side, it does have lots of beautiful stock footage of animals and nature.

Ray and his contemporaries have a problem and it's not that they don't like atheists, it's that they simply cannot accept what Atheism is. Atheism is, quite simply, the rejection of the claim that a God or Gods exist, nothing more than that. Ray, however, thinks that Atheism is also a "belief" in evolution, that it has its own belief system, its own dogma, its own values and morality (or lack of, in his opinion) and therefore, as he intentionally presents Atheism as something it's not and never has been, the idea that he can "disprove" it with one question is both absurd and deliberately misleading. How exactly does one disprove the rejection of a claim? One cannot. If, however, one presents the view Ray's trying to disprove, dishonestly, endowing it with characteristics and values it does not have, one can set about trying to discredit and may apparently (subjectively) succeed but the conclusion as a result of this process is only going to be dishonest, and that's exactly what this film is...

So we are back in the 19th century calling them monkeys? Talk about de-evolution but to the "Europeans".
Nice.