David Thomas No, seriously, you sound a little immature. Why should his being religious (if your unnecessary guessing is correct) be any more of a problem than you being atheist.
I saw Derren Brown a while back in London, at his show infamous. It was brilliant, the way that many separate mildly impressive acts came together to make an absolutely incredible final 5 minutes. Great man.
Quite a few modern sciences and professions started off as parlour tricks, electricity was seen as a parlour trick for decades before people started trying other things with it.
"I sense you're sitting in a bus going wrong way ... Or maybe ot is a relationship" :D this line made me laugh. Sounded like something you'd put into a comedy sketch show like Little Britain xD
+Ben Theredonethat Speaking at a debate at Oxford University with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the man regarded as the world's most famous Atheist states, he is an "agnostic" and has never called himself the world's most famous Atheist because he is clearly agnostic ! watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 P.s. Richard likes word play he uses it like an hegelian dialectic to confuse and steer the outcome in his debates...Like a conjuring trick! There are linguistic Tricks and Master Dawkins knows plenty of them btw
As long as science has no fundamental understanding of the nature of reality we will have these unscientific ideas put forward. It is not what science can do or explain it is what science cannot explain that is the problem! Science has no understanding of why we have a future that is always uncertain and a past that we can never change. If science could explain this based on reason and mathematics it would help replace these unscientific ideas!
Absolutely , i have experienced many things of a metaphysical nature. EVerything is happening in the 'now' , i have experienced mediumship that did not include cold reading or barnum statements. There is so much going on that most people can't even begin to realise or understand....
An artist theory on the physics of 'Time' as a physical process. Quantum Atom Theory it's because they're thinking in terms of time/motion but once you start thinking in terms of present/stillness this changes.
EDITED This is in reference to another Richard Dawkins interview of a religious nutjob who basically "cold reads" religious people. I'm not sure if that was your intention An artist theory on.... but well played ruclips.net/video/-AS6rQtiEh8/видео.html (edited again because I didn't copy the entire link and only posted half of it)
I had some experience of training for psychic development, I was interested in metaphysics.. Subtle energies we have not fully understood as yet, I was in fact sceptical. However, at the end of the course, I had experienced things that really were impossible to explain... No tricks! There are always charlatans but there are secrets in this universe we have yet to label. Keep an open mind I say!
That's amazing! You experienced things that were impossible? Why haven't you informed the world? You could be a billionaire within a year and go down in history as the person who found and proved the supernatural. People could study this and confirm without doubt that yes, it IS truly impossible. You could revolutionise out understanding of physics, humanity, and reality etc. Society as we know it would changed overnight. Holy shit! Or maybe you are one single person who is mistaken..... Hmmmm.
+Kevtb87 well, seeing as you asked....I believe it is inate in all of us. have a look at quantum physics and maybe the impossible is actually possible...I keep an open mind..that seems to be how we get to understand these things. I do recognise there are plenty of people who will lie and steal from others, but there are others that want to help by offering their well intentioned energies, which is pretty powerful.
@@kevtb874 What to see the impossible? Go and do a high dose of psychedelics. There, I've given you the secret to the supernatural and impossible. Let me know how it goes.
I worked out Derek Acorah's cold reading in the 1990s by recording his 'Talk Radio' shows with James Whale and analysing them. He did everything Derren talks about here and more. It sickened me that I knew that HE knew he was looking for a 'hit' all the time while the people he was stringing along were hurting and desperate for some comfort.
i think that has ended now, read an interview with the amazing randi a while back where he said it was too much work to keep going. i think he has proved his point anyway
Jimbo and Bubba were two blind brothers from a very rural small town. Their father died so they had to fly on an airplane for the very first time. Soon after take-off Jimbo tells Bubba that he doesn’t really believe he’s flying because “it just ain’t possible for no man to fly in the air!”. Bubba tries his best to convince him otherwise but without success. Suddenly the plane loses its engines! As the plane is going down - which brother puts on a parachute before he jumps?
Off topic but as for the old Chicken or the Egg debate goes - Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.
a way to avoid the problem of simply inventing names and waiting until someone in the audience recognizes it, is if the psychic chooses a person beforehand and then says the name. If that is the case and if someone has seen that happen, the evidence is much more convincing.
@The7thBeatle Science doesn't say that the universe sprang forth from nothing, it simply states that everything in the universe is moving away from one point, the point of what we assume to have been a super planet that exploded. Because everything in the universe was gathered into this point and was then randomly dispersed amongst the universe we can say that nothing that happened before that event has any relevance to anything that occurred afterwards, i.e. us.
Where can I start in learning what Derren Brown does? (not in front of an audience!)? I have already read - Derren Brown: Tricks of the Mind, Derren Brown: Mentalism tricks. Please don't put a link to his recommended books, I just want a good "step-by-step" guide to some of his tricks, I also do not want to have to pay for anything so a website or downloadable .pdf would be great, thanks
@jmann114 you've missed my point. howard storm was not brain dead, he didn't die at all. everything he experienced might as well have been a bad nightmare, there's nothing to say otherwise that isn't purely coincidental. clinical death is not death, it only retains the name because for a VERY long time people thought that if your heart stopped you were dead by definition, which you're not because your brain continues to function until it's deprived of oxygen.
« Are you attempting to disprove evolution? » No. I was responding to `mossinator`, why claimed that "with evolution, everything is possible", thereby in fact stating that the theory is untestable. Specifying its limitations provides a framework for testability.
Spiritual is a word that has never been properly defined. Even established dictionaries will tell you this. It can be anything from "feeling close to nature", an emotion anyone looking at a waterfall can experience, to believing in a deity.
@TonyLee1000 are you saying Derren Brown is not an internationally reknowned master mentalist (the parlor game-magician type mentalist ofcourse)? Then please mention some that are, particularly those I can see on youtube like I can Derren Brown.
@jmann114 also, when i say "in their mind" i mean it in the sense that everything we experience in our living consciousness is experienced in our mind via our senses. so if someone who's heart stops on the operating table can see and hear what's going on around them all that means is that their brain hasn't stopped functioning due to the lack of blood being pumped to it.
"Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it. To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works."
If you ask a spiritual or religious person what the answer to life is, you'll almost always get a definitive answer that they are so 'sure' of. Ask another spiritual/religious person the same question and you'll get a different answer altogether... Now... ask an Atheist what the meaning of life is, or what 'God' is, and most of the time you'll get a "I don't know". It's not ignorance, it's just honesty.
@jmann114 "But the same could be said for people who insist they are just hallucinations." the burden of proof lies with the person claiming that it wasn't just a hallucination. "but the people who have experienced clinical death always come back with something to share. And it's not just abstract images/sounds. Some of them have reported and proven that they were consciously aware of what was going on around them." clinical death is not brain death, and nobody comes back from brain death.
From Non Sequitur: "The most accurate fortune ever told. You will be told what you want to hear. It will be so generalized that it could fit anyone. You will pay a ridiculous amount of money for it."
The barnum statements experiment / reading experiment Derren did just shows how almost-identical we all are. But yet people often think 'oh that's a me thing!', any time you think or do something you think is unique to you, you can bet that probably 95% of others think or do the exact same. So, even this within itself, if you know this, you could fake being 'physic' quite easily by just thinking of inner thoughts or fears or ambitions you have, then just say them to someone else like you know it's true of them, and it'll feel like you're reading them
everyone in poverty, everyone who has ever been tortured, any homeless person in the world, anyone starving, anyone involved with gang violence, anyone killed by a disaster, the list goes on.
Why would I go there? Do you really think the "King of tricksters" is going to say anything other than "it wasn't a trick?". He or his team are going to great lengths already to patch up things on the web. "Incriminating" links are disappearing fast; forums suddenly have eloquent support suddenly arriving days after the show has gone away? Why would people who are "happy" the show wasn't faked suddenly go looking for the doubters? No ... your post is intended for others who may have read mine.
The second half of the video where they're talking about people teaching others to cold read without it seeming like trickery...reminds me of how my my mom and grandma trained me to think that this sort of stuff was legit. They taught me how to do this, and I honestly thought nothing of it. Then I hit my teen years, started really looking at the world as objectively as I could, and started to form my own opinions. Scary how they didn't realize what they were teaching me.
« it's only sensible to be agnostic » Most atheists, including me, are. But agnostic only means that we think that we can never know *with absolute certitude*. It does not mean that we cannot assign probabilities based on the available evidence.
Glad to be of service, just wanted to point out the intellectual brilliance of that most enlightening comment, don't thank me, thank you MrCardShark101
@MountcastleFilms That's an interesting theory: everything is part of something larger. Talking about the video, whenever someone says something hurtful to you, though you may be strong enough to outwardly deflect it, the internal "hit" will penetrate even deeper. Talking to a good friend afterwards can help, but what we really need to do is to find the best friend inside ourselves so that we may break a negative thought pattern at its root.
The point is "scientific" facts can not been known with absolute certainty, because it is limited to observation, which can always change based on capabilities etc. Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. But you can disprove a theory easily. (Stephen Hawking, 1988)
Barnum Statements: statements along the line of: "When life gives you a collapsed bridge, make bridgemonade!" or "I've been improving my vocabularium with a wonderful book..." Fable 2 anyone?
Same way microevolution happens. Copying is not precise, and even the smallest detectable difference is enough to drive change when acted on by a selection pressure. How doesn't it happen? By what mechanism are random copy errors constrained, and to what boundries?
"Atheist that gives rise that be believes in abiogenesis" An atheist is not required to believe any particular model of abiogenesis just because he's an atheist. For instance, an atheist could believe that life was seeded on Earth by an alien civilisation, which itself originated in the previous cycle of the universe, or from another universe. Anyway, whether or not any particular atheist believes in any abiogenesis model is completely besides the point.
I like Darren Brown, he's used his talents for entertainment and this type of thing he could keep to himself. In the know, kind of thing, but he's explaining, exposing it. There doesn't seem a malisciousness about him.
Einstein's God isn't the God that Christians or any other religion believes in. It's not a monotheistic being - it's more referring to the natural world, the scientific world. It's not a religious God is what I am trying to say - Richard Dawkins explains the concept much better than I can in his books.
"Love everyone" I love that quote! He loves you so much that he will send you personally down to hell to burn forever, to cry in agony, scream in tears, screech for help, in the lonely fiery depths of the burning hell. But i guess he still "loves" you! For the supposedly, "free will" is not free will. If God is the almighty knowing God, he would know our destinies, or in other words our futures. So what is the point of this free will, if he already knows our future destinations?
I'm not making anything up, you can go through a few thousand of videos and see for yourself, I'm not talking about a small indication of it, it's an actual and very apparent trend.
@legion1a while i wholeheartedly agree with most of your comment... "Buddhism is alright, it is benign, and it is not evil." there's been a lot of violence involving buddhist monks in tibet, so i wouldn't let them off the hook that easily.
I was looking at a different Internet Explorer window, and when I came back, the video was at 3:15, and I thought Dawkins was choking Derren. Hahahaha.
I say I find his view repetitive and somewhat simple, which you apparently call laughable, but this man is representing his work vocally. If his book is really that brilliant, wouldn't it either show in his videos or wouldn't he simply refer to the complexity of the situation? Why would I suspect his work to be interesting if he only says the same, basic thing over and over again. I spend enough time reading philosophy as it, I want to at least suspect that a book contains a good point.
@jmann114 part of it? you mean on it's own the video isn't conclusive? i want you to provide solid fool proof evidence which stands up to scrutiny, do you have this? or are you wasting both of our time?
Sometimes it is because religious people don't like swearing and sexually explicit language in comments. Their values are against the use of this kind of talk. So they disable comments to prevent people using that, I am sure that if people commented using appropriate language even if they were disproving the beliefs some religious people would allow it. i understand some people don't like to be shown to be wrong, but many religious people switch religions when given the evidence.
To me Richard Dawkins is like Robert Langdon from Dan Brown's novels: he takes all the myths, fears, misconseptions and unveils the symbolism behind them.
@Cinqmil Derren Brown has said on numerous occasions that he likes Dawkins and is impressed by his work- so I doubt it was intentional :) In addition, Derren doesn't put much credence in NLP...
« theories are always wrong » Hm. I would say that theories are always to some degree *inaccurate*. The natural sciences are (mostly) governed by statistics, after all.
@XGralgrathor Are you attempting to disprove evolution? There is not a single item in your post that does so... Specifying limiting factors does not disprove anything. That would be similar to saying that gravity is limited because it is much less effective on a human being outside of our atmosphere (virtually non-existent in the case of small masses at a great distance). So is gravity therefore in question as well?
Unfortunately, scientists have lost a lot of credibility because of their biased support of the tobacco industry 'finding' that cigarettes are not very harmful; their support of the UK government claiming that there were nothing wrong with British cows and their support of mobile phone companies finding what they are being paid to find.
@g00dm00sic clearly you've never read any of his books? he actually doesn't debate religious people anymore. i don't think he's ever attacked any religion.
That's a ridiculous demand. If you tell everyone you can fly, they will all ask you to prove it. What you're saying is just like saying "No. Prove that I can't fly!" If you want people to believe something, you need to prove that it's true instead of telling them to prove it's false.
« atheism's criticisms of religion do not apply to the belief in a deity alone » Of course not. It extends to any logical fallacy that believers tend to employ in defence of their belief in a deity as well.
@Mossinator5000Deluxe As Atheists, we simply do not teach our children scriptures or creeds based on supernatural entities and events. We allow our children to investigate for themselves to find what makes sense for them, we show them the evidence provided by science, and most good Atheists show them the scriptures of each religion, but as literature and not factual documentries. You as a Theists, bring your children up intoa religion, stringing them to these creeds.
A meeting of two of my fave people in the world today. Sweet.
Really ? I'm guessing you're religious then.
*****
Why not, since there is nothing wrong with gay people.
David Thomas No, seriously, you sound a little immature. Why should his being religious (if your unnecessary guessing is correct) be any more of a problem than you being atheist.
Religion was a concept created by man to control other men. Nothing good in it !
kent2305 🤣
"Even if science can't explain everything, what makes you think religion can?" - Richard Dawkins
What makes you think it can't?
@@Conography how do humans acquire knowledge in general? With science or with religion? Just think for a moment.
@@LittleVboh why do you think science hasn't been able to solve the mystery of Consciousness yet? Just think for a moment.
@@Conography and religion did?
@@LittleVboh no, religion is, for the most part, a perversion of mystical teachings.
My two favourite people. Just needs hitchens there too
+Dougie “dougster701” Haggerty Sam Harris, while not as great as Hitch, does just fine carrying his torch.
+Ben Theredonethat
Yeh i do like sam too
We'll have to hold a séance and invite Hitch to join us ;)
Im sure derren could create that illusion!
i was delighted just now when i discoveered theres an episode on sam harris podcast waking up (spotify)that features derren brown, have fun!
Wow, I'm loving this.👍
Two great minds😊
wow great upload! An interview w a master of any field about his field is always a treasure to the curious mind!
When derren hesitates he does his little head nodding tick thing, so adorable :') They are both awesome people.
Nervous tic....
I saw Derren Brown a while back in London, at his show infamous. It was brilliant, the way that many separate mildly impressive acts came together to make an absolutely incredible final 5 minutes. Great man.
i think this man is more of a psychologist than a magician
Quite a few modern sciences and professions started off as parlour tricks, electricity was seen as a parlour trick for decades before people started trying other things with it.
Brown is both. He did close up table magic originally. He is a highly intelligent and perceptive individual.
"I sense you're sitting in a bus going wrong way ... Or maybe ot is a relationship" :D this line made me laugh. Sounded like something you'd put into a comedy sketch show like Little Britain xD
I love how Richard is innocently asking for answers. And Derren is doing his best to be polite and avoid revealing mentalism/reading secrets.
Why are there so many Dawkins interviews where they're standing the entire time?
Can if they want to.
could have bought another camera for this interview
And some chairs wouldn't go astray too.
Does anyone else notice that Derren has a head tic? I notice it in pretty much any video of him but never really hear any mention of it.
M111771 No?
Stephen Lynn You'll notice it if you know what to look for - just a tiny head nod at random times.
He's had loads of tics over the years, I think it's just a side effect of being a very meticulous person :)
+M111771 How the hell do you see a tic on his head? Is it on his left or right? Did he ever come down with lyme disease?
+Ben Theredonethat Speaking at a debate at Oxford University with the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the man regarded as the world's most famous
Atheist states, he is an "agnostic" and has never called himself the world's most famous
Atheist because he is clearly agnostic !
watch?v=dfk7tW429E4
P.s.
Richard likes word play he uses it like an hegelian dialectic to
confuse and steer the outcome in his debates...Like a conjuring trick!
There are linguistic Tricks and Master Dawkins knows plenty of them btw
Richard Dawkins + Derren Brown = doubly brilliant!! :) Thanks for posting this.
This is brilliant. Cheers uploader dude.
The Richard Dawkins foundation lol.
Two very very intelligent people there!
When 2 awesome persons meet :)
Very interesting interview.
great interuiew
saw this guy live tonight, spoke to him and got a picture with him too. Best live show ever, I seriously recommend it!
Love it, good sense of humor, it's a pity there isn't more of it on youtube!
As long as science has no fundamental understanding of the nature of reality we will have these unscientific ideas put forward. It is not what science can do or explain it is what science cannot explain that is the problem! Science has no understanding of why we have a future that is always uncertain and a past that we can never change. If science could explain this based on reason and mathematics it would help replace these unscientific ideas!
Absolutely , i have experienced many things of a metaphysical nature. EVerything is happening in the 'now' , i have experienced mediumship that did not include cold reading or barnum statements. There is so much going on that most people can't even begin to realise or understand....
An artist theory on the physics of 'Time' as a physical process. Quantum Atom Theory it's because they're thinking in terms of time/motion but once you start thinking in terms of present/stillness this changes.
Sorry but your comment honestly doesn't make much sense to me.
EDITED
This is in reference to another Richard Dawkins interview of a religious nutjob who basically "cold reads" religious people. I'm not sure if that was your intention An artist theory on.... but well played
ruclips.net/video/-AS6rQtiEh8/видео.html
(edited again because I didn't copy the entire link and only posted half of it)
Woo Woo.
I had some experience of training for psychic development, I was interested in metaphysics.. Subtle energies we have not fully understood as yet, I was in fact sceptical. However, at the end of the course, I had experienced things that really were impossible to explain... No tricks! There are always charlatans but there are secrets in this universe we have yet to label. Keep an open mind I say!
That's amazing! You experienced things that were impossible? Why haven't you informed the world? You could be a billionaire within a year and go down in history as the person who found and proved the supernatural. People could study this and confirm without doubt that yes, it IS truly impossible. You could revolutionise out understanding of physics, humanity, and reality etc. Society as we know it would changed overnight. Holy shit!
Or maybe you are one single person who is mistaken.....
Hmmmm.
+Kevtb87 well, seeing as you asked....I believe it is inate in all of us. have a look at quantum physics and maybe the impossible is actually possible...I keep an open mind..that seems to be how we get to understand these things. I do recognise there are plenty of people who will lie and steal from others, but there are others that want to help by offering their well intentioned energies, which is pretty powerful.
@@kevtb874 What to see the impossible? Go and do a high dose of psychedelics. There, I've given you the secret to the supernatural and impossible. Let me know how it goes.
:D Meme magic is real tho...
(and the funniest part is that dawkings make it possible)
Dawkins*
Am I the only one who LOVES Derren's voice?
The late Colin Fry used this a lot.
Nope, dead is dead, no conversation is possible.
Ohhhh yeah i've been waiting for this
Deren Brown + Professor Richard Dawkins = Blissful Enlightenment
I worked out Derek Acorah's cold reading in the 1990s by recording his 'Talk Radio' shows with James Whale and analysing them. He did everything Derren talks about here and more. It sickened me that I knew that HE knew he was looking for a 'hit' all the time while the people he was stringing along were hurting and desperate for some comfort.
Anyone can talk to the dead... They just never get a response because, well, they're talking to a dead thing.
i think that has ended now, read an interview with the amazing randi a while back where he said it was too much work to keep going. i think he has proved his point anyway
Jimbo and Bubba were two blind brothers from a very rural small town. Their father died so they had to fly on an airplane for the very first time. Soon after take-off Jimbo tells Bubba that he doesn’t really believe he’s flying because “it just ain’t possible for no man to fly in the air!”. Bubba tries his best to convince him otherwise but without success. Suddenly the plane loses its engines! As the plane is going down - which brother puts on a parachute before he jumps?
Yes, it was during a debate; although, for the life of me, I can NOT remember exactly which debate it was from.
@TonyLee1000 "condemn themselves by there own tongue."
My tongue spells it "their".
We can spell properly.
Off topic but as for the old Chicken or the Egg debate goes - Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created.
That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.
a way to avoid the problem of simply inventing names and waiting until someone in the audience recognizes it, is if the psychic chooses a person beforehand and then says the name. If that is the case and if someone has seen that happen, the evidence is much more convincing.
they really needed a second camera
@The7thBeatle Science doesn't say that the universe sprang forth from nothing, it simply states that everything in the universe is moving away from one point, the point of what we assume to have been a super planet that exploded. Because everything in the universe was gathered into this point and was then randomly dispersed amongst the universe we can say that nothing that happened before that event has any relevance to anything that occurred afterwards, i.e. us.
@warriorprince1010
What were you doing during the time when the other kids were learning?
Where can I start in learning what Derren Brown does? (not in front of an audience!)?
I have already read - Derren Brown: Tricks of the Mind, Derren Brown: Mentalism tricks.
Please don't put a link to his recommended books, I just want a good "step-by-step" guide to some of his tricks, I also do not want to have to pay for anything so a website or downloadable .pdf would be great, thanks
@jmann114 you've missed my point.
howard storm was not brain dead, he didn't die at all. everything he experienced might as well have been a bad nightmare, there's nothing to say otherwise that isn't purely coincidental. clinical death is not death, it only retains the name because for a VERY long time people thought that if your heart stopped you were dead by definition, which you're not because your brain continues to function until it's deprived of oxygen.
« Are you attempting to disprove evolution? »
No. I was responding to `mossinator`, why claimed that "with evolution, everything is possible", thereby in fact stating that the theory is untestable. Specifying its limitations provides a framework for testability.
Spiritual is a word that has never been properly defined. Even established dictionaries will tell you this. It can be anything from "feeling close to nature", an emotion anyone looking at a waterfall can experience, to believing in a deity.
@TonyLee1000 are you saying Derren Brown is not an internationally reknowned master mentalist (the parlor game-magician type mentalist ofcourse)? Then please mention some that are, particularly those I can see on youtube like I can Derren Brown.
@jmann114 also, when i say "in their mind" i mean it in the sense that everything we experience in our living consciousness is experienced in our mind via our senses. so if someone who's heart stops on the operating table can see and hear what's going on around them all that means is that their brain hasn't stopped functioning due to the lack of blood being pumped to it.
"Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it. To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works."
@XGralgrathor My mistake.
If you ask a spiritual or religious person what the answer to life is, you'll almost always get a definitive answer that they are so 'sure' of. Ask another spiritual/religious person the same question and you'll get a different answer altogether...
Now... ask an Atheist what the meaning of life is, or what 'God' is, and most of the time you'll get a "I don't know".
It's not ignorance, it's just honesty.
@jmann114 "But the same could be said for people who insist they are just hallucinations."
the burden of proof lies with the person claiming that it wasn't just a hallucination.
"but the people who have experienced clinical death always come back with something to share. And it's not just abstract images/sounds. Some of them have reported and proven that they were consciously aware of what was going on around them."
clinical death is not brain death, and nobody comes back from brain death.
From Non Sequitur: "The most accurate fortune ever told. You will be told what you want to hear. It will be so generalized that it could fit anyone. You will pay a ridiculous amount of money for it."
Shop link is dead. Please update it.
Sorry, I am not english speaking, but are they saying "code" reading or "cold" reading?
two of my favorite people
The barnum statements experiment / reading experiment Derren did just shows how almost-identical we all are. But yet people often think 'oh that's a me thing!', any time you think or do something you think is unique to you, you can bet that probably 95% of others think or do the exact same. So, even this within itself, if you know this, you could fake being 'physic' quite easily by just thinking of inner thoughts or fears or ambitions you have, then just say them to someone else like you know it's true of them, and it'll feel like you're reading them
everyone in poverty, everyone who has ever been tortured, any homeless person in the world, anyone starving, anyone involved with gang violence, anyone killed by a disaster, the list goes on.
Why would I go there? Do you really think the "King of tricksters" is going to say anything other than "it wasn't a trick?".
He or his team are going to great lengths already to patch up things on the web. "Incriminating" links are disappearing fast; forums suddenly have eloquent support suddenly arriving days after the show has gone away? Why would people who are "happy" the show wasn't faked suddenly go looking for the doubters?
No ... your post is intended for others who may have read mine.
The second half of the video where they're talking about people teaching others to cold read without it seeming like trickery...reminds me of how my my mom and grandma trained me to think that this sort of stuff was legit. They taught me how to do this, and I honestly thought nothing of it. Then I hit my teen years, started really looking at the world as objectively as I could, and started to form my own opinions. Scary how they didn't realize what they were teaching me.
« it's only sensible to be agnostic »
Most atheists, including me, are. But agnostic only means that we think that we can never know *with absolute certitude*. It does not mean that we cannot assign probabilities based on the available evidence.
Glad to be of service, just wanted to point out the intellectual brilliance of that most enlightening comment, don't thank me, thank you MrCardShark101
@MountcastleFilms
That's an interesting theory: everything is part of something larger.
Talking about the video, whenever someone says something hurtful to you, though you may be strong enough to outwardly deflect it, the internal "hit" will penetrate even deeper. Talking to a good friend afterwards can help, but what we really need to do is to find the best friend inside ourselves so that we may break a negative thought pattern at its root.
Amazing. Why didn't I see this before?
The point is "scientific" facts can not been known with absolute certainty, because it is limited to observation, which can always change based on capabilities etc.
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. But you can disprove a theory easily. (Stephen Hawking, 1988)
@santosbl01 Bit harsh, I dont think anyone who isnt a DoP noticed. Thanks for that though. Are you the Jeremy Clarkson of DoP?
Barnum Statements: statements along the line of: "When life gives you a collapsed bridge, make bridgemonade!" or "I've been improving my vocabularium with a wonderful book..."
Fable 2 anyone?
Same way microevolution happens. Copying is not precise, and even the smallest detectable difference is enough to drive change when acted on by a selection pressure. How doesn't it happen? By what mechanism are random copy errors constrained, and to what boundries?
"Atheist that gives rise that be believes in abiogenesis"
An atheist is not required to believe any particular model of abiogenesis just because he's an atheist. For instance, an atheist could believe that life was seeded on Earth by an alien civilisation, which itself originated in the previous cycle of the universe, or from another universe. Anyway, whether or not any particular atheist believes in any abiogenesis model is completely besides the point.
I like Darren Brown, he's used his talents for entertainment and this type of thing he could keep to himself. In the know, kind of thing, but he's explaining, exposing it. There doesn't seem a malisciousness about him.
@AwakeIsland it's not that, its that its moving all over the place, why not just film with a wider angle lense or slightly further away... anwyay...
OK big shot, give it your best. How does micro to macro happen?
Einstein's God isn't the God that Christians or any other religion believes in. It's not a monotheistic being - it's more referring to the natural world, the scientific world. It's not a religious God is what I am trying to say - Richard Dawkins explains the concept much better than I can in his books.
This interview could have really done with two cameras, and possibly some seats - the camera movement is a bit distracting in places
"Love everyone" I love that quote! He loves you so much that he will send you personally down to hell to burn forever, to cry in agony, scream in tears, screech for help, in the lonely fiery depths of the burning hell. But i guess he still "loves" you!
For the supposedly, "free will" is not free will. If God is the almighty knowing God, he would know our destinies, or in other words our futures. So what is the point of this free will, if he already knows our future destinations?
I love these two
I'm not making anything up, you can go through a few thousand of videos and see for yourself, I'm not talking about a small indication of it, it's an actual and very apparent trend.
@legion1a while i wholeheartedly agree with most of your comment...
"Buddhism is alright, it is benign, and it is not evil."
there's been a lot of violence involving buddhist monks in tibet, so i wouldn't let them off the hook that easily.
i agree. if i recall correctly, he refuses to directly debate creationists. probably because he realises that there will be no useful outcome.
I think they were referring to the sway and not the quality of image.
the camera made me motion sick!
I was looking at a different Internet Explorer window, and when I came back, the video was at 3:15, and I thought Dawkins was choking Derren. Hahahaha.
I say I find his view repetitive and somewhat simple, which you apparently call laughable, but this man is representing his work vocally. If his book is really that brilliant, wouldn't it either show in his videos or wouldn't he simply refer to the complexity of the situation? Why would I suspect his work to be interesting if he only says the same, basic thing over and over again.
I spend enough time reading philosophy as it, I want to at least suspect that a book contains a good point.
@jmann114 part of it? you mean on it's own the video isn't conclusive?
i want you to provide solid fool proof evidence which stands up to scrutiny, do you have this? or are you wasting both of our time?
not his foundation entirely just the million dollar prize, tried to find the article but can't remember where i read it. i could be wrong tho
Sometimes it is because religious people don't like swearing and sexually explicit language in comments. Their values are against the use of this kind of talk. So they disable comments to prevent people using that, I am sure that if people commented using appropriate language even if they were disproving the beliefs some religious people would allow it. i understand some people don't like to be shown to be wrong, but many religious people switch religions when given the evidence.
Thank you MrCardShark101 for using 'thus' in your answer, you just do not see that literary splendour nowadays
To me Richard Dawkins is like Robert Langdon from Dan Brown's novels: he takes all the myths, fears, misconseptions and unveils the symbolism behind them.
@Cinqmil Derren Brown has said on numerous occasions that he likes Dawkins and is impressed by his work- so I doubt it was intentional :) In addition, Derren doesn't put much credence in NLP...
@ReasonForThat
Humanity made it up to keep people in line
That is indeed correct, therefore I shall retract my last statement and say that my flaw could be my memory that failed me in my time of need.
« theories are always wrong »
Hm. I would say that theories are always to some degree *inaccurate*. The natural sciences are (mostly) governed by statistics, after all.
Look at the way Derren uses his arms and hands while explaining
@XGralgrathor Are you attempting to disprove evolution? There is not a single item in your post that does so... Specifying limiting factors does not disprove anything. That would be similar to saying that gravity is limited because it is much less effective on a human being outside of our atmosphere (virtually non-existent in the case of small masses at a great distance). So is gravity therefore in question as well?
Unfortunately, scientists have lost a lot of credibility because of their biased support of the tobacco industry 'finding' that cigarettes are not very harmful; their support of the UK government claiming that there were nothing wrong with British cows and their support of mobile phone companies finding what they are being paid to find.
Great... How do I change it back.
@g00dm00sic
clearly you've never read any of his books? he actually doesn't debate religious people anymore. i don't think he's ever attacked any religion.
FYI - A parable is not a short simple versus. I think you're thinking of a Psalm.
Quite. Thanks, it pained me as well.
I'm fairly sure it is you that isn't getting it, but why don't you explain what I'm not getting?
That's a ridiculous demand. If you tell everyone you can fly, they will all ask you to prove it. What you're saying is just like saying "No. Prove that I can't fly!" If you want people to believe something, you need to prove that it's true instead of telling them to prove it's false.
« atheism's criticisms of religion do not apply to the belief in a deity alone »
Of course not. It extends to any logical fallacy that believers tend to employ in defence of their belief in a deity as well.
@Mossinator5000Deluxe
As Atheists, we simply do not teach our children scriptures or creeds based on supernatural entities and events. We allow our children to investigate for themselves to find what makes sense for them, we show them the evidence provided by science, and most good Atheists show them the scriptures of each religion, but as literature and not factual documentries. You as a Theists, bring your children up intoa religion, stringing them to these creeds.