Stein Interview w/ Beck (ductape needed)

[_Thama]

Christopher Hitchens is a world-class journalist. Why do you think he panders to the ignorant? God is Not Great?

The more I read Hitchens, the more I appreciate his style. Even if he isn't on the same level as Harris or Dawkins, he does a good job. I wouldn't even compare him with Stein, who is famous for sounding boring.

Because the man can't get his facts straight. One look at his stuff on Mormonism in God is not Great and all kinds of red flags pop up. Hitchens is entertaining in his angry-drunk schtick, but I wouldn't call him particularly substantive. But it's not like I hate the guy. I just see him as another form of infotainment. He's the Archie Bunker of the New Atheists.

Ditto.

Hitchens is the atheist version of a Texas Televangelist.

[_Some Schmo]

I've been following this thread and wanted to post some thoughts.

First, I have found it difficult to disagree with creationists without being accused of ridiculing someone's sacred beliefs. They use the word "sacred" as if to distinguish their beliefs from my own. As if my beliefs are driftwood to their lofty clipper ship. But if you want to put your sacred belief into schools and into news and movies then you better be prepared to not be offended when your sacred beliefs are debated as if they were mere regular ordinary beliefs. It's not like we are barging into Ben Stein's house telling him he's an idiot for believing in God. He put out a movie and making some rather incendiary accusations about Darwinism. Of course that is going to get a response from people precisely because he IS ridiculing people's beliefs, or at least equating their beliefs with those of Nazi's (which is utterly absurd).

But the biggest problem I have with most creationist arguments, especially Ben Stein's, is how misleading, manipulative and utterly un-educational the whole thing is. Stein is not trying to educate, enlighten, or broaden people's understanding. He is merely trying to persuade, and doing and saying anything he has to, including lying to Richard Dawkins and others he interviewed, to move minds to his side. What could I possibly learn from this? It's merely a disturbing look at the state of politics in this country.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't hate religion. But when it comes to understanding the world I live, scientifically speaking, very often religion is lacking. So I look to science to satisfy my curiosity. Religion, scripture, and the like are much better at helping me understand human relationships than they are at understanding atoms or thermal dynamics. But trying to make religion explain everything feels a little like trying to use a plunger to commute to work. It's religion! Use for religious purposes! I don't look to science to figure out how I should treat my sister. When it comes to my sister, I am most certainly not a natural selection-ist or I would have had to kill her long ago. (a little joke for those who've read this far)

It frustrates me the amount of energy we use in the country to move laterally. Back and forth we go. And "documentaries" like Expelled are the worst type. Learning is good. Are we learning anything? Why are so many of our leaders refusing to divulge the evidence that doesn't support their position? Just look at Expelled's web page. Stein puts out that Galileo and Einstein believed in God and thought it was fundamental to science then the very first comment on his page points out that Einstein said he doesn't believe in a "personal" god that listens to you and answers prayers. That's a freakin’ big distinction! How many creationists would buy into that God? Do you think Einstein would support Stein's movie? How can you call that anything but misleading or lazy research. If Stein simply "misspoke" once then I'd understand. But Stein isn't misspeaking. This is a pattern. At BEST he is incompetent. At worst he's deceitful and deluded.

And what's with the term "professional atheist"? How is that any different than "professional priest" or "professional bishop". Are you shocked that somebody is actually making money off what they say about God? Let me break it to you... God is and always will be good for a buck. So if you want to use "professional atheist" as a derogatory term then I hope you use "professional clergy" as one as well cause really there is no difference. And if you suggest that clergy are different because they "help" people then I would suggest that you have a limited ability to see things from any perspective other
than your own.

On a final note... I'm not as net savvy as others on this thread. Sorry. I registered so I could post on this thread so I'm not as good at quoting or linking. But I didn't want to write a bibliography anyway. So if I get picked to pieces for not sourcing or saying "exactly" what so and so said then I just go ahead and say you win. Yea! You win!

Just want to say I enjoyed this post. Some great thoughts here.

Welcome to the board!

[_Sethbag]

I don't have "God is Not Great". What did Hitchens write in that book about the Mormons which is way off?

[_GoodK]

I don't have "God is Not Great". What did Hitchens write in that book about the Mormons which is way off?

He called Fawn Brodie "Dr. Brodie" even though she never earned a doctorite degree.

I don't know what else was off. He did not go into mopologetics, but I don't remember reading anything that was WAY off.

You can read his chapter on Mormonism here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/

I loved the book.

[_The Dude]

I loved the book.

I couldn't finish it. I hate his style. Reading his book, all I could think of was a theist demagogue taking the same approach against non-believers, scouring history for the worst possible examples to enforce the opinion that everything is poisoned unless you have God. It's quite appropriate, in my opinion, to discuss Hitchens in this thread about Ben Stein, because they make a good match.

Ben Stein could have written a book version of his documentary: How Darwin poisons everything. <puke>

[_Sethbag]

If you couldn't finish it, can you send it to me? I'd like to read it, and you apparently have little use for your copy. ;-)

As I said, I haven't read his book, but I've listened to tons of intereviews and speeches on the net and I like watching him. He's definitely got a pretentious air about his speech, but he can back it up.

And "Oh no!" he mistakenly referred to Fawn Brodie as Dr. Brodie? Well that's it, the whole book is crap. ;-)

[_GoodK]

I couldn't finish it. I hate his style.

Well then I'm not surprised you dislike him. His writing isn't much without his style. I personally like his style. He is sarcastic, his humor is dry. He can be crass, yet very well spoken. Is he the best at making the arguement? No, of course not. I don't think he tries to be.

Reading his book, all I could think of was a theist demagogue taking the same approach against non-believers, scouring history for the worst possible examples to enforce the opinion that everything is poisoned unless you have God.

I'm used to hearing it from them, obviously. It is refreshing to watch him deal with them the same way. The way he turns the tables is very amusing to me.

It's quite appropriate, in my opinion, to discuss Hitchens in this thread about Ben Stein, because they make a good match.

Wow. I don't think I would follow you that far. Ben Stein is in his own league of awfulness. At least Hitchens is entertaining. And credible in his field. Stein is a joke.

Ben Stein could have written a book version of his documentary: How Darwin poisons everything. <puke>

heh. I thought that was pretty much his argument. Evolution poisons everything.

[_The Dude]

Reading his book, all I could think of was a theist demagogue taking the same approach against non-believers, scouring history for the worst possible examples to enforce the opinion that everything is poisoned unless you have God.

I'm used to hearing it from them, obviously. It is refreshing to watch him deal with them the same way. The way he turns the tables is very amusing to me.

Refreshing?? The answer to a bad argument is a better argument, not an equally bad one.

Unless, maybe, we can use Hitchens as an example to show creationists what is so wrong with the Ben Stein approach. And if a creationist says "Yes, I see your point. We don't need people like this, getting our views across in this way." That would be refreshing.

It's quite appropriate, in my opinion, to discuss Hitchens in this thread about Ben Stein, because they make a good match.

Wow. I don't think I would follow you that far. Ben Stein is in his own league of awfulness. At least Hitchens is entertaining. And credible in his field. Stein is a joke.

Maybe the differences are not quite as great as you think. Just ask a theist what she thinks of Hitchens, and the people who love his book, who find him "entertaining" and "credible". It's pretty much the same way we feel about people who like Stein, who find him "entertaining" and "credible".

Ben Stein could have written a book version of his documentary: How Darwin poisons everything. <puke>

heh. I thought that was pretty much his argument. Evolution poisons everything.

But only Hitchens made a title out of it. That's why I think they are so very comparable.

[_GoodK]

Refreshing?? The answer to a bad argument is a better argument, not an equally bad one.

Religion poisoning everything is hardly a bad argument.

Maybe the differences are not quite as great as you think. Just ask a theist what she thinks of Hitchens, and the people who love his book, who find him "entertaining" and "credible".
It's pretty much the same way we feel about people who like Stein, who find him "entertaining" and "credible".

Sorry, I don't follow. I think the differences between the two are clear. Perhaps they seem so similar to you because you find them equally repulsive.

Ben Stein could have written a book version of his documentary: How Darwin poisons everything. <puke>

heh. I thought that was pretty much his argument. Evolution poisons everything.

But only Hitchens made a title out of it. That's why I think they are so very comparable.

(It was originally title "the case against religion" If I recall correctly, and was released in the UK under that title)

Hitchens is a million times more clever than Ben Stein, if you are going off of book titles and writing style.

Most of Stein's book titles are dreadfully boring and many seem like run on sentences. Hitchens, titling his book God is not Great (a play on Allāhu Akbar) was pretty clever considering most of his book thrashes Islam.

But besides style, I don't know what else there is to differ on. It's all a matter of personal perspective. I argued with my friend about how crappy Lil Wayne is for a half hour. She insists his music is good music. I'd rather jam this pen into my ear than hear another song of his.

[_Leegrid]

I found this review of Expelled interesting. Here it is in case you haven't seen it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/