Ben Stein admits to being a lying America-hater!

[msterliz]

You really have to be kidding with this clip. "I wouldn't do anything against Nixon". This is evidence of his willingness to break the law? Seriously? Maybe if it were a longer conversation, but in this context I think he was just saying he liked Nixon, not that he would break the law for him. Do you not see the distinction?

[SvendsenAtheist]

me and the easterbunny is gonna do a interview with jesus tomorrow and his gonna tell us everything.i cant wait for it.

[username4396]

I don't need a paragraph to say: Christianity is ftw

[username4396]

Let's hear it for Jesus!

Jesus saves.

[shonkey]

@username4396 He must have a good credit score than. Probably get any loan he wants

[username4396]

My faith is my shield

My faith is my shield

My faith is my shield

My faith is my shield

My faith is my shield

My faith is my shield

My faith is my shield

[shonkey]

while I agree that Ben Stein is a creation R-tard with an agenda, taking a clip like this in which he was clearly being sarcastic about being Deep Throat and trying to say its evidence of him being part of the watergate scandal makes you just as bad as him with distorting the truth. C'mon, lets be reasonable here and not make the same easily avoidable mistakes that they make all the time

[tingtangs]

@shonkey Are you fucking retarded? How was he being sarcastic?

[shonkey]

@tingtangs How was he not being sarcastic? Maybe you're one of the ones that just can't pick up on tones in the human voice that indicate sarcasm but he certainly was. BTW its retards who don't have any concept of sarcasm. So maybe you might want to rephrase your insults before you make yourself look like the r-tard! Secondly this clip is taken out of context and only shows you a very short example of the conversation. Lets not resort to the same tactics as the far right.

[tingtangs]

@shonkey Answer the question. What makes you think he was being sarcastic? The context clearly shows that he wasn't.

Fuckhead.

[shonkey]

@tingtangs Wow so now I'm a fuckhead? You're making a horrible example of your side which I'm actually on, but you seem so angry for no reason other than someone disagreeing with your contrived clip arrangement. Watch his body language, oh angry one, it tells it all. The tone in his voice, the way he holds his head when saying he wasn't deepthroat and had nothing to do with it and the smirk on his face right before it. It was all said sarcastically. And the clip is taken WAY out of context.

[shonkey]

Before you resort to another schoolyard insult, take a step back & realize that you're doing the SAME thing as the right wing creationists do. Taking things out of context & distorting the truth. Yes, Ben Stein is a creationist who is trying to subvert science progress in our school systems, but he's not going to go on national broadcast television & readily admit to being anti-american when his base audience for creationism is the tea party America loving type. It would be counter productive

[Chiefpokeaho]

@tingtangs Yes the out of context, context, clearly shows he was being serious. Get the Eff outa here dummy.

[tingtangs]

@shonkey He was not being sarcastic, you fucking retard.

[DW8807]

I hate glenn beck and ben stein, but that statement was obviously supposed to be taken tounge in cheek

[handsomedevill1001]

No, science cannot explain how the universe began; but just because science can't does that mean I shlould believe that the Bible can? LOL....The only thing the Bible really demonstrates is how angry, volatile, hateful and petty God is. Am I really expected to believe that all that metaphor and allegorical garbage holds the answers to our greatest questions? To accept the Bible would mean imposing an intellectual boycott on myself. I'm much too rational for that sh*t.

[MrSkate4weed]

how about all of you just quit fucking arguing already

[Frontierplz]

Why has it suddenly become okay to criticize people for being religious, but NOT okay to criticize someone for being unreligious? Of course, discrimination in both cases is inhumane, but if the unreligious are going to jump down the throats of the religious, then I believe the religious should be given the chance to stand up for and defend their beliefs without being bombarded with profanities and crude comments from the unreligious.

[systematic101]

@Frontierplz I think part of the reason is that for thousands of years the religious have to killing, demeaning, persecuting, hating, and forcing their religion down peoples throats. The unbelievers have had enough of this you're going to hell, god hates fags, you can't hold office, in the name of god crap.

[Kotszu]

@Frontierplz

We're criticizing him for being a dishonest liar who produced a propaganda film to mislead millions of well meaning Americans to believe in his bullshit.

No one gives two shits about his religiousness.

[Frontierplz]

Is the language really necessary? But that aside, I think I posted that in response to all the negative comments about Creationism and religion seen in the comments here.

[snoman99991]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, where do you get from, "I would say nothing against Nixon" to your statement of "Creationists always lie"?

Nothing in this video shows the two being related. Please, give the context of Ben Stein having fulfilled both requirements before you make that claim!

I don't disagree with you, but this is a poorly made video if you aren't going to educate people on all of the background of your content.

[carcosa]

This idiot began emailing me long screeds showcasing his shockingly poor understanding of the scientific method and his inability to perform simple logical operations.

Why christians want to cozy up to me I have no idea. I have nothing for any religionist but bile.

[HardBodyNyC]

WHO DID WTC?

[MajSmJz]

Yea well Dawkins, though a smart guy, has no answer to certain questions. Anyone would be humiliated if they were asked questions Dawkins was. He'd be better off if he admited he had no answers. End of story.

[tingtangs]

What the hell are you talking about, you fucking cunt?

[MajSmJz]

Stay on the level. You're not really an animal, if you think about it. So snap out of it and tell me what part of "Dawkins has no scientific answer to certain questions" did you not understand?

[Chiefpokeaho]

@tingtangs Hes talking about Dawkings saying we could have been created by Aliens but there is no way we were created by a God. How the hell does this make any sense at all?

[la2111]

@Chiefpokeaho Any alien life would have existed via a process of random mutation and natural selection i.e. a life form that obeys the natural laws of the universe.

God (according to the religious) has always existed and created the universe and everything in it in 6 days - this clearly does not follow natural laws of the universe.

Dawkins (and others) was stating that alien life could have arrived on earth via comets. He may have been referring to the discovery of amino acids on a comet,

[carcosa]

"Yea well Dawkins, though a smart guy, has no answer to certain questions. Anyone would be humiliated if they were asked questions Dawkins was."

And the Church has ZERO answers. None that are true anyway.

Where's your evidence that jesus was anything more than a fairy tale? Be specific and provide sources. I want to be amused by your ignorance.

[MajSmJz]

You've subtly agreed Dawkins has no answers. That's what I've been saying all along.

I never said God can be proven. There are many instances where history is compatible with the Bible, and there are ZERO instances where history is incompatible with it, but that still isn't a solid proof, sadly.

Evolution can't be proven. Some people BELIEVE it did. I have nothing against them. The problem is that evolution is the only thing that is taught in schools about our origins. Fix that and we're even.

[carcosa]

"You've subtly agreed Dawkins has no answers. That's what I've been saying all along."

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Science has some answers. Religion has ZERO answers.

"Evolution can't be proven."

It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt for something like 98% of United States science PHDs. It's CERTAINLY proven beyond the feeble nonstandard of evidence by which you mindlessly accept the insane lies of the bible. Double standard much?

Where's your peer-reviewed evidence?

[MajSmJz]

Concerning our origins, science has no answers. But it has plenty of guessings, I agree.

In example:

"We know evolution happened and we know it will be proved in the future."

If the majority of people (I don't know where you got that 98% number) believe something, it does not necessarily prove it right. Back in the years everyone believed the Earth was the center of the universe. It didn't make it a fact just by the majority's opinion.

[carcosa]

"It didn't make it a fact just by the majority's opinion."

You're right, it would be argument ad majorem-- but the fact remains that if you're trying to refute the work of tens of thousands of biology, physics, geology and paleontology PHDs, you had better have a very good argument and have some actual evidence for your claims.

Where's that evidence again?

[MajSmJz]

The evidence for creation is the same as for evolution, only interpreted differently. One could say one's interpretation is different than the other's, but that is not a refutal. Creationism has guessings supported by the evidence and in sound with the Bible. If you want to eliminate yourself to 1 interpretation only, that's your problem of narrowing your view. It's not proof of anything. Stretch yourself as much as you can, you won't be able to prove our origins and neither will I.

Farewell.

[carcosa]

"The evidence for creation is the same as for evolution, only interpreted differently. "

Ha! Ha ha ha! You're claiming that a rigorous process of peer review is the same as a book of hateful fairy tales compiled in the Bronze Age and still taken as the literal truth 2000 years later by credulous dupes like yourself. That's precious, I'm saving your quote for later enjoyment.

"It's not proof of anything" No, the overwhelming evidence is proof :)

[Frontierplz]

You're aware that the THEORY of evolution is just that...a THEORY, correct? It hasn't been proven.

[FaithForDummies]

@Frontierplz If you believe that then you're dumb, or deluded.

[Frontierplz]

@FaithForDummies Well, if you believe the theory of evolution is absolute truth, the same goes for you.

[BillKiernan]

@Frontierplz no one who knows anything about science EVER thinks any scientific theory is "absolute truth" including scientists. that's what science is about. thanks for playing.

[BillKiernan]

@Frontierplz you obviously have no idea what THEORY means in science, and in the 21st century that is truly, truly sad.

[carcosa]

"you won't be able to prove our origins"

Maybe not to grown adults who still have imaginary friends. It's good enough for people with doctorates in physics and biology and organic chemistry, and none of them have been able to assail it even though they've tried for over a hundred years.

And you're just not that smart. Armed with these vague, wishywashy assertions, you'll get nowhere.

Religion is on the decline. Soon the United States will join the civilized world.

[carcosa]

"Creationism has guessings supported by the evidence and in sound with the Bible."

So your only support is a book of fairy tales written by witchdoctors 2000 years ago.

I'm sorry, but that's just completely pathetic.

Hilarious too however. Do you still sleep with stuffed animals?

[kubush]

Wrong. Creationists dont "interpret" the evidence; they completely ignore the majority of it, twist other part, and make stuff up.

[MajSmJz]

Let's take your 98% for granted and rephrase your sentence:

98% of US scientists believe evolution happened.

Few hundred years back 99% of all the people IN THE WORLD believed in a geocentric system. It was the prevailing theory. But it wasn't correct.

There is probably very close to zero peer-revieved evidence for creation, because modern definition of science says no supernatural being can be included. That's modern only. Correct the definition back, and we'll have plenty of p.-r. evidence.

[carcosa]

"There is probably very close to zero peer-revieved evidence for creation, because modern definition of science says no supernatural being can be included."

I don't think anybody's saying this. It's just that causation by Easter Bunny doesn't work for anyone older than six and I think you're smart enough to understand that.

"Concerning our origins, science has no answers. But it has plenty of guessings, I agree."

Guessings supported by actual evidence and an intellectually rigorous process.

[Tutterkop]

@majsmjz

The reason why this argument is flawed is because of the way they gathered evidence and the way we do it. back then it was observe, ask questions about the event and speculate about the awnser. now it is ask a question then impose, NOT observe, events on nature to anwser a question you have set.

So you can't point to a scientifically flawed method of gaining ideas to a scientificly supirior way to gather evidence.

and btw the bible states The earth is the center of the universe.

[Frontierplz]

"The Earth is the center of the universe."

Please post the verses that state that.

[BillKiernan]

@Frontierplz

Joshua 10:12-13

Ecclesiastes 1:5

[PrestonTocco]

@BillKiernan Yeah.....those don't say anything about the sun being geocentric.

"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" "Heaven" in this verse is referring to the sky. Not the galaxy.

There's nothing in Ecclesiastes 1:5 that is talking about the sun being the center of the universe.

[BillKiernan]

@PrestonTocco it was what the Church considered proof of heliocentricty.

[Frontierplz]

@BillKiernan

Joshua 12:12-13--Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down a whole day.

[Frontierplz]

@BillKiernan

Ecclesiastes 1:5--The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

I see nothing in those verses to suggest that the Earth is the center of the universe.

[holdenbane]

@Frontierplz i think the point they are trying to make is that the sun DOESN'T go up and down as if it revolved around us. it only appears that way because of the spinning of the earth on it's axis.

[kubush]

Belief in geocentrism was because of the lack of a scientific method. And lets not forget that the Church promoted geocentrism as biblical and threatened people with death if they went against it.

Creationism makes many claims that can be tested and the verdict is in; Creationism is false.

[PrestonTocco]

@kubush hahah. creationists make a bunch of claims?

Show me the verses in the Bible that say the earth is geocentric.

You couldn't be any more vague when you say "the church"

Who says "the church" supported creation?

fail.

[lazarusrex]

@MajSmJz Dawkins who?

[MrJohnnyrace]

@MajSmJz Are you a creatard????

[karlmahlmann]

I'm so mad at Ben Stein for humiliating Richard Dawkins in that documentary of his.

[barryfrom]

Bueller

[grungefreak10]

That douchebag can give me a deepthroat.

[sonic8005]

He's probably one of the ones who doesn't catch when he lies, and/or contradicts himself. Many of them see obvious contradictions and hypocricies and such, and ignore them.

It's like that stance where you have to accept that life isn't always perfect, so you say "sin" did that imperfection, then you have to lie to say that the fact that this imperfection happens is a sign evolution is "wrong". After that, you go back to "perfect designer" b.s

[methinxaweezil]

I can see Stein supporting a lying crook, but an anti-semite?

tinyurlDOTcom/5zaacy

"The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards."

Richard Nixon 2/1/72

[proudfootz]

methinx -

Maybe Nixon knew Ben Stein and extrapolated....

[methinxaweezil]

LOL, I think like a lot of crooks Nixon was just paranoid.

The selective morality shown here is interesting. Stein "...would not do anything against Nixon for anything", but you can be certain that if a a scientist such as Darwin had uttered a quote like Nixon's, Ben Stein would be the first to point it out and find a way to connect the dots to Auschwitz.