Is Bill Maher’s film Religious the atheist equivalent of Ben Stein’s Expelled?
Answer :
They can't be equivalent, because Maher uses "gotcha" journalism and subversive tactics to prey on innocent people and make them look like fools. He's ignorant of what he talks about and uses a straw man type of attack - using the fringe to make the whole outlet look crazy. He misleads the audience into drawing his conclusions out of what little video they see, and he appeals to irrational and cooky theories of science and religion that are unproven. He's almost like a conspiracy nut in the religious world...
Ben Stein is just honest and presents facts as they are...leaving conclusions up to the viewer. He might lead them a little bit, but I think he uses solid examples and presents things clearly. He lets the people in his film tell the story, like a real documentary should.
Who would even think to compare the 2? Maher is clueless...and has always proved so on his show.
35 comments
Wait, I think you got that completely ass backwards...
"using the fringe to make the whole outlet look crazy"
Newsflash - you ARE the crazy fringe, dude.
See, the difference in the two films it this:
Maher allowed the people in his film to look like fools all on their own.
The producers of Expelled tricked the people interviewed, and edited their answers to make them look like fools.
I don't even keep an irony meter in my house anymore. Just too dangerous to have around, and the insurance company won't cover me if I have one. Too many damage claims.
Haha, he uses "gotcha" journalism which apparently means "letting people talk". As opposed to the shameless hackjob Stein did in his "documentary" where his targets barely got to finish sentences and didn't even know what documentary they were going to be in. And then banned those people from the theater :D
"They can't be equivalent, because Maher uses "gotcha" journalism and subversive tactics to prey on innocent people and make them look like fools"
I've not seen Maher's film, but Expelled (please can I have those 90 minutes back, incidentally?) does exactly that.
Please go buy a dictionary, or just use a free one online, and look up words like true, fact, logic, straw man, ignorant, irrational, unproven, well, just about every word in your post that's more than one syllable, because I have the feeling that you have no idea what they really mean.
"Ben Stein is just honest and presents facts as they are...leaving conclusions up to the viewer. He might lead them a little bit, but I think he uses solid examples and presents things clearly. He lets the people in his film tell the story, like a real documentary should."
Maybe that's true in Fundieland, but unfortunately this is reality.
I have never heard of either of these.
I do like Michael Moore though, the documentaries I've seen by him seem quite fair and interviews appear un-edited, scripted and lack any discernible dirty tricks.
Stein went to several talk shows (check Youtube) and spoke the same monolouge on each one.
It's the one where he says Darwinism can't explain the origin of the universe or life. An educated man wouldn't use this argument as Darwin was only concerned with development over time (he was corrected on this, but like Hovind he keeps the same arguments that have already been destroyed)
Expelled was made for four reasons
1) Lock the already deluded creationists into their delusion by pretending their beliefs have scientific proofs
2)Convert some dummies who don't recognize bullshit in technocolor
3)Try to establish a legal recourse to creationists not being allowed in high science fields on the claim that it's prejudicial (which is is, in the same way mentally challenged people aren't allowed in either) and to see if they can force such people in to muddy the science and legitimize their crap
4)Ben stein needed money
Bill Maher, by the way, has been on this track for years. He just didn't become an atheist or be outspoken about it just for a movie. He may have actually lucked out in his timing as the Expelled movie hadn't yet bombed by the time he had his movie funding together
What I find interesting is the people somehow equating Maher and Stein. This is simply untrue. For starters, Expelled overedited like a hollywood blockbuster. Religulous actually could have USED some editing, particularly two instances, one where Maher and a guy go off on a tangential argument which serves no purpose, and another where a priest gets interrupted by his cellphone and they leave the whole bit in when they could have kept the integrity by cutting it and leaving a placard [interview interrupted by cellphone]. At least the priest had the decency to be in to Coheed & Cambria.
Maher has his flaws. You could probably make a respectable case that Maher's documentary was unfair and that he did misrepresent some information ( Egyptian mythology does not work that way) and the like. Maher's been known to be irrational. While I would not go so far as to say that Religulous is anywhere near as misleading as Expelled , I see the claim that it's the atheistic equivalent of Expelled as at least defensible.
However, to claim that Expelled is honest and presents the facts clearly as they are, that it uses solid examples, that it's "a real documentary" -- that, my friends, is insane.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.