Darren Brown

[Ooberman]

Is he the apologists worst nightmare?

http://youtu.be/jYjgeayfYPI

[Thunderbuckett]

Is he the apologists worst nightmare?

http://youtu.be/jYjgeayfYPI

my worst nightmare is I'm in a public debate and I find I'm in my undies. Daren Brown is a clown. Here's a good take down of his nonsense:

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/01/a ... gious.html

[Zzyzx]

How can one distinguish between a trick / illusion and a miracle?

This is a tough one alright...since I believe I've seen both without being able to describe the workings of either, <sigh>.

I agree -- and add that it is unfortunate that in our society (and perhaps all human societies) determining what is real / true vs. what is false / illusion is often very difficult. Many vested interests present illusions of all sorts very convincingly, usually in an attempt to gain an advantage for themselves or their favored causes (often in the form of money, fame, position or influence).

Because of the warnings and a conservative nature, I err on the side of skepticism - if GOD wants me to know its a miracle, that's HIS job.

We may not be far apart in this respect; however, if I decide to accept certain ideas I do not blame or credit supernatural influence, but take full responsibility myself.

My answer you reject was an effort to use personal experience and not depend upon the Bible as my only source. It is not my fault that no one else knows the details of my Christianity.

I understand and accept that your personal experiences are convincing to you and that no one else knows the details of your personal experience. That is exactly why personal experiences or testimonials are not convincing to others (particularly in debate with people whose experiences are very different from yours).

But I must contend that spiritual truths are understood by faith, which is hope without proof, but I do accept that Christians know GOD exists as their faith grows.

Yes, the more that people believe the more they believe . . . .

I know there is no proof GOD does not exist so all statements of Christianity being a fantasy etc are also unproven assertions which I find to be an acceptable double standard with most people here.

Agreed. There is no proof that gods do not exist and that anyone who makes that claim is making an unproven assertion.

Typically in these debates, however, few people claim to know that gods do not exist -- but rather they challenge those who claim to know that gods DO exist. God proponents are at a disadvantage because their theological position rests upon unprovable assumptions / conjecture / stories / testimonials that they feel compelled to defend as truth and as evidence of supernatural influences.

I do feel frustrated with the lack of non-believers ever calling other non-believers on their unproven assertions but instantly call out believers.

I agree. However, Ted, that works in both directions. Theists seldom call out fellow theists when they make outlandish statements or claims.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Is he the apologists worst nightmare?

http://youtu.be/jYjgeayfYPI

my worst nightmare is I'm in a public debate and I find I'm in my undies. Daren Brown is a clown. Here's a good take down of his nonsense:

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/01/a ... gious.html

I didn't really see any takedown of anything. I just saw opinions. Was there some kind of point you found enlightening in this article?

[Thunderbuckett]

Is he the apologists worst nightmare?

http://youtu.be/jYjgeayfYPI

my worst nightmare is I'm in a public debate and I find I'm in my undies. Daren Brown is a clown. Here's a good take down of his nonsense:

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/01/a ... gious.html

I didn't really see any takedown of anything. I just saw opinions. Was there some kind of point you found enlightening in this article?

did you really read it, or did you do an atheist reading, where you see the first line and then say "I don't agree with that" then don't read any more?

that articles proves that he is not disproving anything he's creating a stage show, this time read the whole things.

[ElCodeMonkey]

did you really read it, or did you do an atheist reading, where you see the first line and then say "I don't agree with that" then don't read any more?

that articles proves that he is not disproving anything he's creating a stage show, this time read the whole things.

Instead of insulting me, you could simply highlight the points you found interesting. This would be a great help to everyone so that we don't have to read your mind. What you found convincing is very likely not to be equally convincing to the rest of us.

[Thunderbuckett]

did you really read it, or did you do an atheist reading, where you see the first line and then say "I don't agree with that" then don't read any more?

that articles proves that he is not disproving anything he's creating a stage show, this time read the whole things.

Instead of insulting me, you could simply highlight the points you found interesting. This would be a great help to everyone so that we don't have to read your mind. What you found convincing is very likely not to be equally convincing to the rest of us.

O sorry, I didn't mean it that way. Ok well I think the article is over all demonstrating how the show he planned is staged to make the experiences look wrong but they don't really do anything to prove they are not valid. the way ti's a staged show makes it not scientific. It's not trust worthy.

[ElCodeMonkey]

O sorry, I didn't mean it that way. Ok well I think the article is over all demonstrating how the show he planned is staged to make the experiences look wrong but they don't really do anything to prove they are not valid. the way ti's a staged show makes it not scientific. It's not trust worthy.

Certainly there's a lot of "TV" that goes into it to make it more appealing to the audience. And it's difficult to know for certain what is staged and what is not. I'm personally struggling with the idea that he can hypnotize someone such that weeks later he can call them up on a cell phone and put them to sleep with mere words. I just don't buy it. So if that's fake, who knows what else is as well. That being said, unless there is proof of something being actually staged as opposed to being assumed, then it's hard to say he was taken down. The article may indeed be correct, but I don't recall any direct proof.

[Thunderbuckett]

O sorry, I didn't mean it that way. Ok well I think the article is over all demonstrating how the show he planned is staged to make the experiences look wrong but they don't really do anything to prove they are not valid. the way ti's a staged show makes it not scientific. It's not trust worthy.

Certainly there's a lot of "TV" that goes into it to make it more appealing to the audience. And it's difficult to know for certain what is staged and what is not. I'm personally struggling with the idea that he can hypnotize someone such that weeks later he can call them up on a cell phone and put them to sleep with mere words. I just don't buy it. So if that's fake, who knows what else is as well. That being said, unless there is proof of something being actually staged as opposed to being assumed, then it's hard to say he was taken down. The article may indeed be correct, but I don't recall any direct proof.

he has no control to decide that they are having bonified religoius experience. he has nothing to compare to. he's just assuming if they say they do it must be the same as all others who say they do.

[Ooberman]

O sorry, I didn't mean it that way. Ok well I think the article is over all demonstrating how the show he planned is staged to make the experiences look wrong but they don't really do anything to prove they are not valid. the way ti's a staged show makes it not scientific. It's not trust worthy.

Certainly there's a lot of "TV" that goes into it to make it more appealing to the audience. And it's difficult to know for certain what is staged and what is not. I'm personally struggling with the idea that he can hypnotize someone such that weeks later he can call them up on a cell phone and put them to sleep with mere words. I just don't buy it. So if that's fake, who knows what else is as well. That being said, unless there is proof of something being actually staged as opposed to being assumed, then it's hard to say he was taken down. The article may indeed be correct, but I don't recall any direct proof.

he has no control to decide that they are having bonified religoius experience. he has nothing to compare to. he's just assuming if they say they do it must be the same as all others who say they do.

Which begs the question - how does ANYONE know they are having a religious experience?

I know Hinman claims "ya just know" or judges it by the positive effects after the fact.

If a drunk sobers up, it's God. If he falters, it wasn't really God, but then if he sobers back up for 20 years.., it's God... falls... not God..

Hinman (aka Metacrock) tends to do a lot of post hoc rationalization.

Here TB is doing a similar thing. He wants to say "if it's real, it's real, but anytime we know it's fake it's obviously not the real thing - and we know the difference because there's an a priori difference.."

Yet, we have no idea is ALL religious experiences are exactly the same as the fake ones.

[Realworldjack]

I agree. Such lessons are invaluable to learn. We must realize how susceptible we are to illusion. Even when knowing something is an illusion it can be hard to not to say, "No, this guy must have a pact with the devil or something. This can't be an illusion!" It gets easier with time as you learn more and more and realize just how easily you are fooled, but it can be hard to get past what you don't understand .

"How to Convert an Atheist" was quite astonishing too. I definitely agree that this guy is going to help in the fight against religious scam artists.
[youtube][/youtube]

I want to apologise from the start about the length of this post, but I have been waiting for this sort of opportunity. So thank you!

I realize I have an outstanding post I need to get to with you as far as the genocide and rape goes, and I intend to do that, however, when I arrived home this morning from work, I decided to check out what might be new and ran across this thread, and could not help myself. I have watched the complete video, and was completely intrigued, I love this kind of thing. I would like to tell you what I have learned from this video. But before I do this, I would first like to say, I am not being fisicas in any way, I am not attempting to be funny, or get a rise, rather, I am being truly honest. What I learned was absolutely nothing. In other words, I not only already knew all of this, the fact is, I have lived it!

Let me attempt to give my story as quickly as possible, without going into great detail. I started attending Church camp at the age of 4 years old. The reason is the fact that my dad was the cook at the Church camp for over 40 years. This means, I was exposed to this sort of thing from an early age. I experienced the emotion, and tears, for a good number of years. I associated the emotion, and tears with God speaking to me, just as it seems the girl in the video did. As I became older, I looked up to those older than myself, who were going up front every night, in tears. I realized early on, believe it or not, that I would one day be in their shoes, and everyone would be looking to me, especially since I had been attending for so long. I looked forward to the time when I would be one of the spiritual leaders as a teen at this camp. I will never forget the year I arrived and realized, this was the year. I was only sixteen, but because I had attended so long, and those that may have been older, had only attended a few years, I was convinced this was the time.

The camp started on Sunday after Church, and I could not wait until the first service, which would be that night. When the service came to a close, and we began to sing the last song, I waited on the usual feelings, and was eager to be the first to go to the front. But there was NOTHING! I did not go up front, and nobody else did either. I played this off, and assumed the Lord was not ready to move as of yet. Now, before I continue, allow me to say, that I have never been someone, who is able to fake anything. In other words, all the other years, I truly felt the emotions, and believed that it was God speaking, because sadly, this is what we were taught. At any rate, I looked forward to the next night, in hopes things would be different, however the same result, I felt nothing, I did not go up front, and neither did anyone else. The third night came, and again the same result, but this time I remember a young girl finally went up, and this began to trigger response from others. I thought surely this would also trigger a response from myself, but still there was nothing. I sat, and watched, and listened, until every last chair was empty, but mine. I began to think that God was no longer speaking to me, and attempted to determine if it may be some sin in my life. To make a long story short, I attended the rest of my youth at this camp, never again going to the altar, and believing something was wrong.

When I became of age, and was no longer able to attend camp, I drifted away from Church altogether. I never really thought of Church that much at all, until we had our first child. Less than a month after the birth of our first child, my wife was asking when we were going to dedicate the child? I was extremely upset, and told her, "we have not been to Church in years, and now, you think I am going to get up in front of everybody, and promise to raise this child in the Faith?" I don't think so! Well if you know how marriages go, then you know the wife usually gets her way in these sort of things. After the dedication, I felt sick, because I knew it was all for show, and remember, I am not the type to fake something. But when we had our second child, I was laying in wait for her, because I knew, if she wanted to dedicate the first, she would surely want to do the same with this one as well. And sure enough, here she comes. But this time I laid down the law! I assured her, if we do this, we are going to do what we promise. I laid a good ten minute talk on her, slamming the ball into her court, never expecting to see that ball again. I fully expected her to say something to the affect like, well we don't have to go overboard! This is just something, we are expected to do. I was fully prepared for this, and was ready with my come back.

What I wasn't prepared for was her actual response, which was simply, "What ever you think best"......... Really?? She has now slammed the ball back into my court, and I have no response! I'm not prepared for this! As she turns, and walks away, I realize I have a problem! The problem is I cannot just fake something. In other words, I cannot say I believe something, unless I am convinced.

Again to make a long story short, after months, that turned into years of study, I became convinced of the truth of Christianity. I also came to realize through this study, that all those years at Church camp, God had never spoke to me through my emotions, rather they were simply that, emotions. You see, when I turned 16, without my realizing it, along with all the other changes going on, I had a emotional change as well. I could no longer cry, even though I longed too! It wasn't as though I had no emotion at all, but rather, I could no longer transfer these emotions into tears. This caused me to believe, God was no longer dealing with me. However, as I said, once I began to study the Faith for myself, I came to a place, in which my belief was not built upon a subjective experience, but rather on the objective evidence.

Emotions, can be extremely deceitful as the Bible actually tells us,

Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it? [/quote]

Since the heart is the seat of emotion, we can see the Bible tells us our emotions are deceitful above, ALL things! This seems to mean there is nothing more deceitful, than the emotions, and we should not listen to them, or allow them to verify truth! But this is what many, many, Christians actually do. This is why there are not many Christians here on this site, because they have based their whole belief, on an emotional experience, and this is the only way they can explain their belief. But this should not be surprising at all. Let's consider what Charles Finney said, a leader of the so called second great awakening, and also considered by many as the father of modern Evangelicalism,

F) "A revival is not a miracle, there is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature." [/quote]

There it is right there, the exact thing Derren Brown did to the Atheist girl. He used the right means, to invoke the intended response. Finney was a master at this, therefore his revivals were counterfeit, even Finney himself worried, Toward the end of his ministry, as he considered the condition of many who had experienced his revivals, Finney wondered if this endless craving for ever-greater experiences of "grace" might lead to spiritual exhaustion. You see, even Finney believed, it did not really matter whether or not Christianity is true, because you can invoke the intended response in spite of this.

But let's think about this for a moment. What does this say about Derren Brown? Mr. Brown is extremely good at these techniques as well. I hold an office, in which I have to present argumentation, I also have to listen to argumentation. I am extremely aware of the techniques, and tactics used. When I walk into a room, I am looking for any information I can get, which includes, tone of voice, and body language. Many things are communicated without words. I noticed this right off with Derren Brown, everything he does has a purpose, such as pausing, or clearing his throat at just the right time, even the gesture, of a scratch. It is all purposeful. Right at the very start, when he stated, what was about to happen was not being filmed, and questioned about whether his mike was in fact working. That was purposeful. He knew full well the mike was working. He is extremely good at what he does. What he does is, he is not necessarily concerned with communicating truth, but rather communicating an intended response! Think about it! It's called deception! Now I am not saying that everything he said was deception, a lot of it was true, but I am convinced, he is not that concerned about truth, but rather he has an agenda, and is willing to do what it takes, and he is extremely good! Think about the tapping on the table, which he even admitted was a tactic. I picked up on this right away, before it was revealed. You see these sort of things will not work on me, because I am looking for these things, and they tell me something. Usually what they tell is, that the facts are being manipulated.

There are two more things I would like to bring up here. The first is, I continue to read here from unbelievers, and Atheist, the complaint about God not being able to communicate His message clearly to the human race, and why there is so much disagreement, and misunderstanding of what God has actually said. This is used as evidence against the truth of God's word. This I think, fails to consider what God's word tells us about how we got into this mess to begin with. Think about it. God gave a command, with three simple words, "Do not eat." What happened? The serpent asked, "Did God really say?" In other words this is exactly what got us where we are, according to the Bible. Deception, and manipulation of what has been said. What was the response, of the first couple? "We were deceived." So why would it be surprising that this is still the case today? It is not that God's word is not clear, rather we ask, "did God really say?"

The last thing I would like to bring up is, just because Mr. Brown has exposed the fact that many Churches use these tactics to bring people to faith, does not in any way disprove Christianity. In fact if you think about it, it actually gives it more validity. The reason is the fact that the Apostles, never once used these sort of tactics. They never once, attempt to create an emotional experience, and point to this experience, that they created, as evidence for it's truth. Rather they point to what they claim is historical evidence. They never use words such as feeling, emotion, or experience. Rather they use words such as, witness, eye witness, evidence, proof, testify, testimony, convict, conviction, and defense. Now where would you hear these words on a daily basis? Thats right in a court of law, where they are attempting to determine truth based on objective evidence. Now think about this. If the Apostles knew what they were proclaiming was a lie, would it not be far easier, to simply create an experience? Surely it would, it only took Derren Brown 15 minutes. So why would the Apostles take the more difficult route? Could it be because the Apostles were not concerned with manipulation, but rather simply communicating truth?