Darren Brown

[Ooberman]

Is he the apologists worst nightmare?

http://youtu.be/jYjgeayfYPI

[Haven]

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.

How can we evaluate religious claims in a logical, reliable way so that we can distinguished frauds from the supposed 'real thing?' How can we as skeptics distinguish a 'genuine' religious experience from psychological manipulation and sleight-of-hand? Without some kind of empirical evidence, I don't see how one can tell.

Remember:

• 1) Dogma is not evidence
  2) Faith is not evidence
  3) Confirmation bias is not evidence
  4) Threats of hell are not evidence
  5) The Bible is not evidence

[Ooberman]

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.

There is even a story circulating about a Darren Brown-type who showed everyone it was a trick, yet, still, people in the audience - polled afterwards - claimed "Well, I still don't believe it's a trick. I think he was lying about that."

Just like 40% of Fox News watchers believe Saddam had WMD's even months after Bush & Co. repeatedly told people Saddam didn't have WMD's. (And it was HUGE news that even Fox News had to cover).

How can truth ever get out if there are people who simply refuse to see it?

Moreover, naturalism explains this horrible gap: we are Apes, we are ignorant of many things, and have patterns of thinking that don't lend to learning analytical thinking.
How does a theist explain that there are people who are simply incapable of seeing the truth, regardless of how many times they are shown it? "God did it?"

[Danmark]

[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).

No. This argument is essentially the 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' logical fallacy.
It's been debunked by clear thinkers.
Here's one site:
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/ ... or-legend/

The argument presents a false choice, or a 'trilemma' according to some of its advocates. First it assumes that the 'miracles' attributed to Jesus actually happened. Then it falsely says he was either crazy, evil, or God. Those are not the only choices.

One may be deluded, but otherwise productive. One may be sincere and feel the end justifies the means, that deception is acceptable for a good purpose. Jesus may have fooled himself or the disciples or both. He may have had a confederate who helped him, Judas for example. The possibilities are as diverse as your imagination, and as complex as the human mind.

[ttruscott]

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

You do understand that a miracle is a supernatural intrusion into our reality no matter what it looks like?

[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.

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).

No. This argument is essentially the 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' logical fallacy.
It's been debunked by clear thinkers.
Here's one site:
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/ ... or-legend/

The argument presents a false choice, or a 'trilemma' according to some of its advocates. First it assumes that the 'miracles' attributed to Jesus actually happened. Then it falsely says he was either crazy, evil, or God. Those are not the only choices.

One may be deluded, but otherwise productive. One may be sincere and feel the end justifies the means, that deception is acceptable for a good purpose. Jesus may have fooled himself or the disciples or both. He may have had a confederate who helped him, Judas for example. The possibilities are as diverse as your imagination, and as complex as the human mind.

Yes, essentially, Christians are forced into a position of dictating the rules of the argument in order to give themselves a fighting chance.

What amazes me is they seem to ignore the many sincere, good people who simply differ in opinion - they would call them all "lunatics, liars or fools".

It artificially removes two options that are glaringly obvious. Two options that we have plenty of evidence for today among billions of believers around the world:

1. Mistaken
2. Legendary development

These don't require conspiracies. The first is that they may have been mistaken in what they saw, heard, or translated. (Similar to the telephone game. This may explain Legendary development, but that is slightly different)

The second is a normal process among humans; like the evolution of language: it's not malicious or planned, but happens organically and without fail. Legendary development happens as we adjust metaphors, imagery, mythologies, and other non-literal ways of explaining the world. It's like calling the "soul" "breath" - they don't mean it's "breath", not really, but they don't have another way of expressing it. Likewise, Chakras, and other so called "energies". This is lying. It's a kind of mistake, but not an error in logic or perception, but a lack of the adequacy of language to talk about complex and unknown things that affect our lives.

By removing the most logical, and most evidenced options, they reduce their argument to their own detriment.

After all, if we take out Legend and Mistake, wouldn't lunatic and liar, then, be the better answers? Better than "all of it's TRUE!!!! He was Lord Our God on Earth!"
None of the other claims about this are accepted to be true, and we have a viable explanation for all the other religions.


We simply have no instance of supernatural stories being true. But, we have plenty of supernatural stories that have developed through the real FOUR options:

Lunatic
Liar
Legend
Mistake




And, to wrap up my little argument: Four is clearly better than Three.

[ttruscott]

and do not pretend that tricks and miracles are the same thing nor come from the same place of power.

Ted, thank you for your thoughts.

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>.

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.

Peace, Ted

[Ooberman]

and do not pretend that tricks and miracles are the same thing nor come from the same place of power.

Ted, thank you for your thoughts.

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>.

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.

Peace, Ted

Ted, you must realize that on a debate site, you have gloriously and obviously punted.

You are saying "we can't know, but I'm going to assert God exists, and therefore, I can simply keep asserting there are miracles."

It's Begging the Question so much so that it comes across as Presuppositionalist Viscous Circularity.

It's very sad that you are refusing to debate, despite the constant reminders this is not a "testimonial site".

At this point, I must ask, point blank, do you know what debate is? And do you realize this is not a testimonial site?

[ElCodeMonkey]

and do not pretend that tricks and miracles are the same thing nor come from the same place of power.

Ted, thank you for your thoughts.

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>.

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.

Peace, Ted

It's easy! If it supports your beliefs and hasn't been proven false: miracle. If it goes against your beliefs or if proven a hoax: trick.

[ttruscott]

and do not pretend that tricks and miracles are the same thing nor come from the same place of power.

Ted, thank you for your thoughts.

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>.

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.

Peace, Ted

Ted, you must realize that on a debate site, you have gloriously and obviously punted.

I can't say I don't know to a personal question???

You are saying "we can't know, but I'm going to assert God exists, and therefore, I can simply keep asserting there are miracles."

It's Begging the Question so much so that it comes across as Presuppositionalist Viscous Circularity.

It's very sad that you are refusing to debate, despite the constant reminders this is not a "testimonial site".

At this point, I must ask, point blank, do you know what debate is? And do you realize this is not a testimonial site?

I thought the Bible as accepted as evidence in this particular forum. I admit I did drop out of debate mode last answer but I thought the question was personal, not discussionary....

Rules:

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

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.

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

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

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.

A reasoned position is NOT to claim that god doesn't exist or that Christianity is fantasy but rather to maintain that neither have been shown (here or elsewhere) to be anything more than products of human imagination.

Personal experiences, emotion, conjecture and unverifiable stories are not sound argument in debate -- and as you have discovered, the bible cannot be cited as evidence of truth in this sub-forum.