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.
The only thing they have in common is that they could both be labeled "propaganda".
However: Unlike Stein's pack of unsupported claims and outright lies, Maher actually uses little things called "facts" and "logic" to support his contention: That religion is dogmatic, ignorant, and often very silly. He puts the various religions and their absurdities on display and points them out...or lets them point them out. Stein, meanwhile, conjures up claims from less than nothing and mixed them together (poorly) in an attempt to lay the Holocaust (and by extension other human atrocities) at Darwin's feet.
One makes its point cleanly. The other has to manufacture its claims and deliberately misrepresent facts to make its claim.
Answers & Comments
Verified 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.
The only thing they have in common is that they could both be labeled "propaganda".
However: Unlike Stein's pack of unsupported claims and outright lies, Maher actually uses little things called "facts" and "logic" to support his contention: That religion is dogmatic, ignorant, and often very silly. He puts the various religions and their absurdities on display and points them out...or lets them point them out. Stein, meanwhile, conjures up claims from less than nothing and mixed them together (poorly) in an attempt to lay the Holocaust (and by extension other human atrocities) at Darwin's feet.
One makes its point cleanly. The other has to manufacture its claims and deliberately misrepresent facts to make its claim.
I lost all respect for Stein, and gained a lot more for Maher.
Maher questions, Stein preaches...
Seen them both and the answer is no, Maher's was much funnier, tongue in cheek and informative. Stein seems to have gone mental a few years back
No.
Ben Stein's move was just ridiculous.
Bill Maher's film was just to show religious ideas, beliefs, or claims that are patently absurd, comical, or ridiculous.
Maybe, but Ben Stein's film is not about fact, Religulous is about fact.
The only difference I can see between Bill Maher and Ben Stein is that Maher is more flammable and therefore will burn that much quicker.
Sorry, never me a Bill Maher. Is he a comedian?
Religulous did way better at the box office too.