*science

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by rembar.

What a miserable man.

*findthumb

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.

i refuse to watch this entire thing just to see that blonde

Creationism and military spending. Two of my favorite subjects mashed into one. Lucky day!

"Rotten tomatoes rating" - Moral based movies typically only do well among their target audiences. Look at the recent war movies for an example. Pretty weak attack vector.

"Science leads you to killing people" - entire section taken out of context. He is talking about the scientific explanation of the origin of life as a dehumanizing influence. He is NOT claiming that every scientific advance is evil.

"Naked vulnerable superpower" - The United States has military alliances with all the countries he mentions. I cannot fathom the link here in trying to Make Ben Stein a bloodthirsty warmonger. War that cannot happen? I agree that all of them happening at once would be virtually impossible, but individually... The US would not have to unilaterally attack anybody, they would be pulled in by military treaties that they have already agreed to. Now, Ben Steins argument is weak too, US military spending is [s]ufficient and just needs to get more [e]fficient.

"Contemptuous regard for rule of law" - The narrator was really fishing for a soundbite on this one. He creates a very nice straw man and sets up Ben stein as a law-shunning malcontent, when he merely differentiated between law and ethics. It *IS* possible to disagree with laws and still follow them. The fact that he is not in prison is proof of this.

Ben is a little off, but the narrator is worse.

After watching the whole thing, this video kinda sucks. Could be about a minute long.

Ben Stein sure is a ass, though. I mean, listen, I can understand that not everyone's daily work is affected by the theory of evolution, but understand that some of us literally take advantage of it to do work, like finding highly conserved homologous gene sequences in different species. If Ben Stein is right, all of genetics and proteomics is made up. Its really that or Jesus started it a billion years ago and used evolution to get to where we are. Thats the only way you can work God into the mix at this point without willfully kidding yourself and/or misunderstanding current biology.

All I'm saying is intelligent design needs to come up with something pretty awesome at this point, because its 100% reliant on ingrained ignorance and c-list celebrities putting out crappy movies. And beyond that, Darwin is kicking their collective ass from beyond the grave.

NSFW due to Tshits? lol

i love typos...

Neocon mouthpiece

*Youtard

^is that a turd avatar?

I used to like Ben Stein, I wish he'd stick to bit parts in movies instead of opening his mouth and spewing forth ignorance. I think all those "BEN STEIN IS SO SMERT" reality shows and games show have gone to his head.

Also rottenseed, it appears to be the skull of a cave bear.

Ben Stein is.....anyone, anyone? A tool, anyone? A absolute tool?

This is a weak video.
"No more cheap T-shits?"

I mean it's not an irony nor is it hypocrisy that because he has legal training that he should support the rule of law or relevance of law. A lawyer's perspective of law, supportive or not, has more credence than someone who can't point to qualifications for legal training.

Despite this, yes, a weak attack vector. Ben Stein is still ridiculous, but he's good at making concise statements. His comments on the blame for 9/11 are a very interesting writing on a spin of logic.

It is a very sad example of irony. Ben Stein is a *very* intelligent man. Yet instead of using his intellect in the defense of science, a proven system of observation and cause and effect, he'd rather employ his smarts to defend angels, leprechauns and fairies.

It's as pathetic as Anna Nicole marrying a 90 year old billionaire or Paris Hilton being rich and popular but spoiled as all get out. *sigh* Oh well, these stereotypes have to come from somewhere I suppose...

i could have gone without smallpox pictures, thanks...

Ben Steins real agenda
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ben-Stiens-real-agenda-Not-what-you-might-think

Ben Stein is a pathetic ignoramus and (along with Bush) is another reason Yale does not even deserve to be ranked in the top 100 universities.

>> ^examininglibertarian:
"Rotten tomatoes rating" - Moral based movies typically only do well among their target audiences. Look at the recent war movies for an example. Pretty weak attack vector.
True in a sense, but also Rotten tomatoes takes the ratings of many, many reviewers and is one of the best gauges of a movie's perception in the wider world. And to say that a 'moral' movie only does well in its target audience... does that mean that a movie should only be judged on how well the already converted see it?

"Science leads you to killing people" - entire section taken out of context. He is talking about the scientific explanation of the origin of life as a dehumanizing influence. He is NOT claiming that every scientific advance is evil.
No, he pretty much is saying that science is evil. If you asked him to rationalize it after giving him the given examples of science doing good, he would say something like that sure, science can do good, but it needs a tempering hand from religion to guide it. Which of course is complete nonsense as all religion has done for centuries is tried to stifle science whenever it proves their beliefs to be wrong.

"Naked vulnerable superpower" - The United States has military alliances with all the countries he mentions. I cannot fathom the link here in trying to Make Ben Stein a bloodthirsty warmonger. War that cannot happen? I agree that all of them happening at once would be virtually impossible, but individually... The US would not have to unilaterally attack anybody, they would be pulled in by military treaties that they have already agreed to. Now, Ben Steins argument is weak too, US military spending is [s]ufficient and just needs to get more [e]fficient.

But his whole argument is based on 'now imagine if they all happened at once. And also to suggest that the US military spending is ANYTHING but grossly inflated is insane. He is using fear mongering to... well, actually I don't know what, what is his aim in his rant? He just wants a bigger army for the US? Yeah, that's a compassionate person.


"Contemptuous regard for rule of law" - The narrator was really fishing for a soundbite on this one. He creates a very nice straw man and sets up Ben stein as a law-shunning malcontent, when he merely differentiated between law and ethics. It IS possible to disagree with laws and still follow them. The fact that he is not in prison is proof of this.
Ben is a little off, but the narrator is worse.

I do agree that he drew a long bow here and twanged it pretty hard. But I think the point he started to make before he went off the rails is that Stein is picking and choosing which laws he wants to adhere to, and suggesting that laws have zero baring at all on issues where he doesn't agree with them.

Stein is someone using nothing more than scare tactics to try and force a world of ignorance onto people. He continues to use the dirt/mud hit by lightning bullcrap as this preposterous notion that he expects people to scoff at.

Even if it were true that science thought that life may have started via a lightning strike into a puddle of mud... I'd have no problem with that if they had good evidence to back it up. These creationists seem to have GREAT issue with thinking that we've evolved from anything lesser than humans, they find it abhorrent to think that we evolved from apes. Why? What's so horrendous in thinking that our long ago forbears were apes? How does that really change who you are, are you repulsed to think that some of your behaviors can be explained because they were born from earlier times in the wild?

This 'I either don't understand or don't like the truth so I'll invent this cushier, softer fantasy and believe in that' notion really, really shits me.

>> ^spoco2:
These creationists seem to have GREAT issue with thinking that we've evolved from anything lesser than humans, they find it abhorrent to think that we evolved from apes. Why? What's so horrendous in thinking that our long ago forbears were apes?

Ahem... just a small nitpick here, but humans are apes.

oh, and the N is missing in the "creationists" tag.

He's going to have a tough time fighting all those pretty wars using only stone age weaponry.

Either God is God or the State is God.

God > State = liberty

State self-declared > God = people in ovens

>> ^quantumushroom:
Either God is God or the State is God.
God > State = liberty
State self-declared > God = people in ovens


That's a false dilemma.

As of 2008, the following states have a majority population of atheists and are just as free as the USA and much more peaceful than the USA:

Norway
Sweeden
Japan
France
Germany

However during WWII, the overwhelming majority of Japanese and Germans were adherents to various religions.

Unless you believe the fairy-tale that a single-celled fertilized egg smaller than a grain of sand has a "soul", early abortion is harmless.

Let's count qm's logical fallacies:

1. False Dichotomy
2. Straw Man
3. Begging the Question

theists are amazing at pathology

Tags for this video have been changed from 'religion, war, Ben Stein, Expelled, science, creatioists' to 'religion, war, Ben Stein, Expelled, science, creationists' - edited by my15minutes

my version (of this):

individual > state = liberty
state > individual = law

(liberty + law) / 2 = harmony

(faith + suggestion) > (reason + empathy) = people in ovens

god = 42

2 / love = sad = hurt one another

>> ^AceOfKidneys:
> theists are amazing at pathology

you mean they... carve people up?

j/k, yeah. but hey, we're all a lil pathological.
atheism is only the cure for one.

As of 2008, the following states have a majority population of atheists and are just as free as the USA and much more peaceful than the USA:

Norway
Sweden
Japan
France
Germany

I don't see the implied relationship of atheism to prosperity or peace. Freedom is not free. Many of the countries listed here are "more peaceful" because the USA spends its resources protecting them now, as well as defeating the ones that were rogue states (then rebuilding them) then.

I could be wrong, but none of the governments on the list has claimed that atheism is "official policy" and they are superior to the Source of natural order. At least three countries on the list are doomed to become Muslim.

However during WWII, the overwhelming majority of Japanese and Germans were adherents to various religions.

Obviously they didn't practice the values that religions instill and organized atheism mimics, beginning with the belief that human life is sacred.

My point is not to denigrate atheists or individual atheism, a "movement" which only recently has established itself in the public eye. My point is to remind everyone here that the historical constant, due to flawed human nature, is that someone or something always has to be #1.

Be it monarch, God(s) or the ever-elusive State, One must dominate and claim itself as the Source of law and order. More tyrannical governments try to make the Leader(s) divinely equal or greater than God. These always seem to end in massive bloodshed.

Downvote is for the distortion of the meaning behind Stein's words by the narrator, not for his arguments against.

^Atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply a lack of belief in god. It is not a social framework. What does the above have to do with the truth of the matter? I don't think you're addressing atheism but rather something else.

http://science.videosift.com/video/Bronowski-This-Is-What-Men-Do-When-They-Believe-They-Have-A

Japan is the only one of those really benefiting from US protection right now. The European Union could very easily defend themselves if Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il had decided to attack Europe. France has hundreds of nukes.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Be it monarch, God(s) or the ever-elusive State, One must dominate and claim itself as the Source of law and order.

There can be many coequal things at the top.

In the US, the separation of powers prevents any one person from dominating, unless there's a wizard in the sky controlling the thoughts of all three branches of government.

What about placing abstract concepts at the top rather than personal agents? Perhaps rule of law, ethics, truth, justice, and science.