1. Messiah

Comment #52772 by Hal9000 on June 28, 2007 at 3:50 am

Note this may contain minor magic spoilers (as a non magician I have no issue with this but don't read if you don't want to know – they are not full spoilers)……..

My beef with Derren Brown is that he makes out that he is using suggestion and psychology in his tricks but I am pretty sure that it is 95%-100% conjuring. I recently watched the televised – 'Something Wicked This Way Comes Tour' and could see that every trick that was sold as involving mental ability was in fact a conjuring trick. He does a big explanation at the end where he tells you that he created an effect by dropping phrases into his in-show banter – but this is a lie, the effect is achieved using traditional magicians techniques (IE creating forces, the impression of choice when none exists, slight of hand and other such techniques.). Another trick involves him guessing which one of 5 people is lying and then guessing a name she is thinking of, and again this is done by forcing the selection of the liar and ensuring that she is observed why writing the name she thinks of. Another trick involves walking on glass – he makes out he is doing it by stopping his heart, but this is not true, the heart stopping is a trick and he walks on glass because, surprisingly, walking on glass, like walking on hot coals is not actually painful.

Having seen his various stage shows and the Messiah program, I am quite sceptical of the effects that are achieved. I don't think he uses stooges, but I don't think he uses 'mind control' techniques either.

He is a great magician and I love watching him perform and I applaud his exposure of physics and other woo woo artists. I just feel uneasy that he makes and breaks a 'contract' with his audience in the presentation of his work and that this makes him uncomfortably close to the woo woo artists he would seek to expose. How many people leave his stage show thinking that they are in on the trick (ie that its about suggestion and the power of the mind) but are really not. Maybe it doesn't matter, I can see both sides of this argument I guess.

2. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41348 by Hal9000 on May 16, 2007 at 1:15 am

I don't think the vitriolic posts on here do anyone any favours. As many have suggested, the mans own words are more than sufficient to make it clear what sort of man this was . But remember, this man has family and friends who loved him and who are very sad at the moment.

All this gloating just looks really immature and is easy ammunition for those that would say atheists are immoral.

3. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25552 by Hal9000 on March 14, 2007 at 4:36 am

@MartinSGill

Not fair - I didnt get a reply!

BTW you can make contributions to his campaign fund via his website, I thought it might be worth making a small ($10) contribution as if there is one thing that will bring politicians out of the closet as athiests its seeing that is has a positive impact on donations!

4. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25425 by Hal9000 on March 13, 2007 at 3:42 am

@ MartinSGILL
From what I have heard, in the States, saying you are a unitarian is a kind of politically correct way of saying you are an atheist.

5. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25417 by Hal9000 on March 13, 2007 at 2:42 am

Is this definately legit? It sounds a bit like the SCA spammed every politician in the US until one ticked a box that could be interpreted as non belief - I would be happier once Stark makes some kind of annoucement himself about this

Edit - just seen this quote in LA Times from Stark

"When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being," Stark said. "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."

6. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24347 by Hal9000 on March 6, 2007 at 5:34 am

David,

Congrats on getting your work in print – I have read most of the letters you have written in this debate and whilst I disagree with much you have written (and agree with a bit!) I think it is pleasing to see someone's efforts rewarded in this way. I have read McGraths book and I have found (in my opinion) your letters to be a much stronger effort, I hope your book is recognised accordingly.

7. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #22107 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 11:23 pm

"By the way I think the following posts sum up the fundamentalism of some atheists "I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!"

That was a joke but thanbks for proving my point!!!!

8. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21994 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 5:44 am

re comment 21989 by Severus

I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!

9. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21965 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 1:59 am

David (st petes),

These continued jibes about discipleship and Fan Clubs do get rather tiresome. I know some people here have written unpleasant things about you and that is a shame but I think you should let it drop now. Your letters to Dawkins usually come across as snipes at the posters on this website, perhaps you will allow the possibility that there are those who do genuinely agree with Dawkins point of view, with regard to this topic, and are not necessarily part of this personality cult that you allude to.

I realise the in vogue response to Dawkins is to call him a fundamentalist and I suppose the implication that this site is his church falls neatly into that concept, however, if you search around this website, you will find that while most are atheists, there is a wide variety of views on the specifics of Dawkins arguments.

Also, if you feel that Dawkins is employing a tactic of belittling those who disagree with him, perhaps you could seek to rise above that sort of thing rather than replicate it?

Hal

10. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20379 by Hal9000 on February 2, 2007 at 4:48 am

I think the best review I have seen of TGD (or at least the most inline with my own view). I have struggled to articulate my own criticisms of the book but I think my main one is summed up by

"I bring up these points not to champion the Hobbesian view but merely to show that it is not ridiculous a priori. There is still work to be done beyond what Dawkins has to say, work both empirical and analytic, if the idea that the general run of mankind will be better off once religion is discarded is to be sustained."