talkmagic.co.uk

Teller once hosted a program where he spoke of card magic. I don't remeber the name of the show..it was some time ago.
But he was quite impressive as a cardician

blacksabre wrote:Teller once hosted a program where he spoke of card magic. I don't remeber the name of the show..it was some time ago.
But he was quite impressive as a cardician

I quite enjoy their ability to enrapture the audience's interest while revealing the method of a trick, while using a similar method to create another revelation.

You have to wonder.... If they had to use explitives to get the message across, how well reasoned/researched are their views?

If the intent was to inform, I imagine they failed dismally as one cannot provide irrefutable evidence by cussing

I understand the discontent these days with all of the ignorance abound, however I do not think that it is wise to incite anger.

I unfortunately also do not know enough about mother theresa, or mahatma ghandi for that matter. I do know that there are groups far more deserving of speech against their ideals. For instance any religious group which harbours conceit or solipsism.

Of course there will be those that think that penn and teller have done 'the enlightenment' a great deal of good, I disagree. By openly mocking other people`s views, they have become no better than zealots who believe that only their veiw is right.

I would have preferred a more sobre refutation/criticism with hard facts. (I am refering strictly to the mother theresa bit)

However, they are entertainers afterall and ultimately they have received a great deal of publicity for this.

I mean, we are discussing it right?

Mission accomplished.

Dan Brown used a similar tactic with Da Vinci code. Although it was not backed up sufficiently with evidence, it produced a strong emotional responce and as such recieved a lot of lime light.

I wrote my post last night and when i re-read it today, it just seemed to bovle (sp.!?...is it even an actual word!? )so I thought I'd edit it!

Basically I think it's alright to have a point of view but to some extent I do agree with the author of the article which sparked this thread. I mean, even though over the generations we've become desensitised to swearing etc. on T.V. it's a bit wierd that P&T chose to use that language to make a point about a religion... then again, maybe they were only stating what they think in a way which was bound to get them attention and not trying to make a point to catholics at all. Either way, the negative response from people is kind of understandable. At the same time, I'm sure the publicity isn't something for the duo to complain about!

Still though, the author himself suggests that some of the other programmes on the same network shouldn't be allowed and I got the impression that the article had an underlying purpose to express the catholic view point as *right* and everything that goes against that as "wrong". That just annoys me. "Hypocrite" springs to mind.

I much prefer Derren Browns approach to performance involving religious beliefs (ie. "Messiah" and his "voodoo doll in the woods" segment which can be found on his latest DVD) because his puropose is clear and this approach is really very hard to dismiss because it is designed to to inform rather than to insult.

To be honest... Symtal kinda summed up what I mean in fewer words


Just my 2 pence.
Norm.

Again I don't know a massive amount about MT other than her motives for her good work. Her motives were purely selfish, she believed she could earn her way into heaven.

You don't know much about her, but you know what's in her heart and soul? That would be the only way of knowing such a thing...

Aside from that, if you don't want to be offended, then pay not attention to P & T. They are offensive, they know they are offensive, and that is exactly what they are shooting for.

Mike.

Jacques wrote:Dan Brown used a similar tactic with Da Vinci code. Although it was not backed up sufficiently with evidence, it produced a strong emotional responce and as such recieved a lot of lime light.

I hope you haven't read the book or seen the long list of Dan Brown's sources upon which the facts in the book are based, for your comment would seem quite out of place if you did. The storyline, characters, and the characters' chalice-related discoveries are, of course, ficticious. However, underlying historical facts throughout the story are not.

You mean like the 'le dossier secret' upon which the whole 'priori of zion' was based?

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/strange-world.html

Jacques wrote:You mean like the 'le dossier secret' upon which the whole 'priori of zion' was based?

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/strange-world.html

I meant many of the historical foundations of the story were true, not that every aspect of the plot had to been historically recorded. Plot -- like magic -- often needs flourishes, historical facts in the backdrop, however, do not.

I think Brown's book is often taken too seriously with regards to its plot, rather than the historical tidbits that flourish the ficticious plot.

I can understand what you mean with regards to the plot of the novel, but the book does indeed have some historical merit. Naturally, some aspects of the book are flourished, and in some cases, entirely ficticious. The author of a book of fiction is charged with writing an entertaining, meaningful piece of literature first and formost. Providing some history in the backdrop of a novel merely allows for a "feel" of authenticity.

I hope you didn't misunderstand my comment.



Cheers,
laughingLoki

Sorry, I think I did

I whole heartedly agree with your views on a good piece of fiction The problem that I have is when people debate the book as an earnest scholarly work.

No matter how good the story is (I almost wish that Jesus did have a child with Mary Magdelene ) , if it is falsified no amount of wishing will make it true.

Thank you for your understanding Loki. A lesser mortal probably would have begun on a series of ad hominum attacks

We all have our own heroes, people we admire and respect, people who made an impact on our life, that made us look at the world with a different eye, Mother Teresa is definitely the one for me.

Although the world is full of good people, great humanitarians that really care, people who donate billions of dollars, people who raise their voice to make a difference, Mother Teresa stands out in the crowd, she is unique.

"It is not how much we do, but how much love we put in the doing.
It is not how much we give, but how much love we put in the giving."

She dedicated every day of her adult life caring for "The dying, the cripple, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved" and she loved every minute of it because she was loving, she was cleaning, feeding "Jesus in disguise".
Yes, she fed them, sheltered them, cleaned their wounds, but what is more important she made them feel good, loved, wanted, she gave them back their dignity that poverty had taken away from them and even if they died they died with a smile on their face....somebody loves them, somebody cares for them ....

"Speak tenderly to them. Let there be kindness in your face, in your eyes, in your smile, in the warmth of your greeting.
Always have a cheerful smile. Don't only give your care, but give your heart as well."

Agreeing or disagreeing with her on abortion, population control, divorce or how she raised the money should not shadow Mother Teresa's life-long contribution and dedication to the poor and humanity.
To criticize someone it's really easy....I suggest: stop criticizing her and do it better than she did.

As this is moving further away from Magician Talk, I've moved it to the Dove's Head.

You don't know much about her, but you know what's in her heart and soul? That would be the only way of knowing such a thing...

Mike that is a crass statement, of course it's not the only way, her beliefs are well documented.