Darren Brown

[Ooberman]

Is he the apologists worst nightmare?

http://youtu.be/jYjgeayfYPI

[Ooberman]

Magicians and tricksters were known in 1st century Palestine. Remember Simon the Sorcerer.

Some Jews also later accused Jesus of being one.

Of course any one can choose to be skeptical and construct elaborate conspiracy theories that defy rational human behaviour for the sake of blocking the possibility that something could actually be true.

This is the most bizarre post I've seen.

You are saying that people can construct elaborate conspiracy theories (like a man coming back from the dead) for the sake of blocking the possibility that something (like faking miracles) could be true...


But, no, you actually mean it the other way around, when we have SOLID EVIDENCE people FAKE miracles, and no evidence that "real" miracles occur.... except in an ancient book of supernatural stories...


I mean... I... I'm speechless at the lack of critical thinking. Is this really how supernturalistists think? That the conspiracy is us skeptics who simply don't see people doing miracles, but DO see people doing tricks?

How is this possibly sane or logical?

Can someone please enlighten me, because I think my brain is about to explode.

[dbohm]

[Replying to post 11 by Ooberman]

If we believe that the miracles of Jesus are all stage tricks and his resurrection was an elaborate hoax, Jesus and his disciples would be very evil characters.

However, this is definitely not the record we have and his words are not words of a madman either. It is totally incongruous with a deceiver.

So to believe that the miracles and the resurrection were tricks to deceive onlookers would lead one to believe only in an elaborate conspiracy which would be far more implausible than that either the events actually happened (the believers's position) or that the miracle stories were written into the stories afterwards (the rational sceptic's position).

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 11 by Ooberman]

If we believe that the miracles of Jesus are all stage tricks and his resurrection was an elaborate hoax, Jesus and his disciples would be very evil characters.

No, they would simply be characters in a story.
The writers would be people trying to tell a story of a Good Man.
After all, they might not have placed such importance on the actual resurrection as modern Christians do.

However, this is definitely not the record we have and his words are not words of a madman either. It is totally incongruous with a deceiver.

That's fine. Jesus may not have been mad, but he may have been mistaken about his divinity.

Look at some of the posters here who think they are spokespeople of "the Creator" - are they madmen? Are they saying evil things?

So to believe that the miracles and the resurrection were tricks to deceive onlookers would lead one to believe only in an elaborate conspiracy which would be far more implausible than that either the events actually happened (the believers's position) or that the miracle stories were written into the stories afterwards (the rational sceptic's position).

I didn't say the resurrection was a trick.

Think about all the miracle claims of other religions - do you think evil people claimed Mohammad ascended to Heaven?

Do you think it was a conspiracy that created Ganesh, the elephant-headed God?

Wouldn't you think the first person to claim that would have been laughed at? Yet, it has persisted for some reason - and not because of malice or stupidity.


I think you falling into the Fundi trap of "It's either all true, or it's all evil!"

I don't think so. I see very good reasons for people wanting to believe it was true - but they were mistaken.

Consider, most people agree the Gospels were written as religious tracts, decades later. It's not a conspiracy, it's people being people.


Do you really think the person who claims Darren Brown "cured" the blind is part of a conspiracy? Or, do you think it's just a good person, misguided?


Let's stop demonizing each other.

[Zzyzx]

Of course any one can choose to be skeptical and construct elaborate conspiracy theories that defy rational human behaviour for the sake of blocking the possibility that something could actually be true.

"Could be true" is a LONG way from "Is true."

Elaborate theories seem common in attempts to explain "miracles" that defy what we know of nature.

[bjs]

Apologist’s worst nightmare? No, not at all.

He is playing to his audience. Materialists who want to believe that that religion is a fraud are happy to see that there are frauds.

Yes, there are frauds out there. Did the non-theists who seem impressed by Brown genuinely not know that there are frauds? Did it never occur to them that someone could pretend to be healed of deafness or blindness when there is in fact no change in their condition? Christians have been warning people about frauds basically from the beginning. Christians have even been telling people how the frauds do their work and warning against false spirituality.

Only someone who already denied God would count this as evidence against God. If this guy’s stunts destroy someone’s faith then it was probably not a faith worth the bother of destroying.

Also, Steve Martin’s fake faith healer movie was much better.

[Ooberman]

The difference, bjs, is that Darren Brown has proven that those tricks can be done repeatedly, without one iota of supernaturalism involved.


You, on the other hand, have not shown one iota the supernatural exists for "your" kind of miracles.


You admit there are frauds - and Darren Brown proved it.
Then you assert there are non-frauds.

Where is your proof?

This is a debate site. Debate.

[Furrowed Brow]

If a miracle looks like a trick, is repeatable as a trick, then it is a trick.

[tokutter]

[Replying to post 11 by Ooberman]

If we believe that the miracles of Jesus are all stage tricks and his resurrection was an elaborate hoax, Jesus and his disciples would be very evil characters.

However, this is definitely not the record we have and his words are not words of a madman either. It is totally incongruous with a deceiver.

So to believe that the miracles and the resurrection were tricks to deceive onlookers would lead one to believe only in an elaborate conspiracy which would be far more implausible than that either the events actually happened (the believers's position) or that the miracle stories were written into the stories afterwards (the rational sceptic's position).

How about the record then.......since..........and now of the jews saying your messiah was a fraud.....hmmmmmmmmmm.......how about that record?????

How about the record of your trinity vistiing one Joseph Smith...........Was Mr. Smith a straight shooter or a ______________ (you fill in the blank)



.

[ElCodeMonkey]

The fraud thing was rather obvious from the get-go. What got me, however, was the simplicity of it all and the willingness of people to fall for it. It's this willingness that shows a built-in desire to believe supernatural things that has likely created religion as we know it. In "How to Convert an Atheist" he demonstrated this all the more.

However, how much faith should we really be putting into the stunts that Derren has performed? This is a TV show meant to grip an audience. Just how real is it? Are we REALLY to believe that Derren can hypnotize someone such that he can call them on the phone, tell them to sleep, and they simply pass out despite the elevated heart-rate and dangerous situation of zombies? I just don't buy it. And if he's lying about that for his TV show, who's to say any of the rest of it is real? Still, yes, there are frauds. We all know it. That's clear. But the overall question remaining for me is whether or not we're REALLY that easily manipulated.

[Haven]

If that's the position you're going to take -- which is completely unfalsifiable -- then I don't see the point in debating you about this. If you're just going to fall back on pure faith after being confronted with contradictory evidence, then there's nothing we as skeptics can tell you, because all we can ever give is evidence.