Sunday, 29 July 2007

The Purpose of Life?

There is no purpose to life, other than the purpose we give it. What this really means is that 'nature is blind' and indifferent and knows nothing of joy, happiness, love or suffering.

The purpose of life is simply the purposes that we apply to the life we have. We create purposes through what we do. Not only does the universe care nothing about purpose, it has no purpose other than being. It is true that universes evolve and eventually die, as they reach infinite entropy and by the same token, it is true that we evolve through biological purposes. But it is not true to say, that such evolution proves purpose, as if somehow nature is aware of an evolving purpose, in which it is the 'director'.

The point is that reality exists independent of the mind and that reality could quite perfectly still exist without humankind in it. The universe would carry on evolving as star stuff scatters from its original big bang. But this movement of star stuff is all done blind. The only mind that can know and be aware is a conscious mind, such as that of you and I. But beyond us or maybe, other conscious beings in the universe, who can contemplate such things... Beyond this, there is no awareness and there is no purpose.

The only reason that we can contemplate the purpose of life, is because we have evolved conscious minds that can proceed forward consciously and deduce purposes. We can deduce purposes only with regard to our conscious self, that is through our own awareness of our own mind. But the universe itself, beyond the conscious awareness of biological minds, is mindless. It does not evolve because it directs, rather it evolves simply because. In other words the evolution of universes is not a process of conscious awareness, it is a process of simply being, thus unlike conscious minds that proceed forward consciously and deduce purposes, existence in toto and independent of mind, simply proceeds and it does so with no purposeful deduction and no conscious awareness. To put it simply, the universe is Godless and cold... It is only the existence of conscious beings that give it warmth.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Quick Cash Writing Course
o Turn your writing skills into quick cash, with this brand new course

Saturday, 28 July 2007

New Age Science Equals Baloney

Go into any book store and the shelves are filled with New Age Science books. But of course, in reality, there is no science to be had. The New Age movement actually contradicts every aspect of the scientific method. Science relies on inductive and deductive reasoning and conclusions are arrived at through principled procedures of investigation and identification, of objectively knowable phenomena, that obey physical laws within reality.

To couple New Age with science of course, leads to an oxymoron. The very definition New Age, implies that there is a new method of reasoning to arrive at, through determinable facts about the universe and these new age proponents, are doing something revolutionary and beyond what the average working day scientist is doing. But 'New Age science', should really be called new age mysticism and indeed, it is when people are being a little more honest.

So, why do people believe in this clap-trap. Well, the fact is that most individuals are mentally lazy and they will look for and even believe in any method of knowledge, that even sounds remotely scientific, even though of course, it is not based on scientific research in any way whatsoever. The other reason is; that most people don't really care about science and would rather live their lives in the realm of delusion, anything other than face reality as it really is.

An example of new age mysticism that 'borrows' from science is the writings, audios and lectures of Deepak Chopra. He makes his New Age science pitch sound scientific, by rapping it up in Quantum Physics. Of course he is not doing any scientific research within the field of quantum physics and not only that, he totally misappropriates the correct scientific definitions of what Quantum physics predicts in reality, wrapping it up in pseudo scientific predictions, about the individuals 'spiritual self', and how the physical self relates to the 'Quantum World' but really it has nothing to do with quantum physics and is just a religious position. He does this to pass on his New Age religion and sell it to the masses of none thinking dupes, in a form of pseudo scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo... Something all New Age gurus do, in one way or another.

Chopra is just one of many of course and the list of New Age 'sciences' is almost endless, it can really be defined as anything within the paranormal or supernatural realm, that 'apparently' cannot be explained through 'normal' science and thus New Age science fills that gap. The term New Age was popularized in the media in the 1980's... Such supernatural and paranormal phenomena include, but are not limited to: Crop Circles, holistic health and medicines, Crystal Healing, Channeling, psychic phenomena, cold reading, transcendentalism, Feng Shui, Magic Alchemy, Mesmerism... etc.

Now, what all these beliefs have in common, is that they rely on paranormal and supernatural claims. Well supernatural means above nature and paranormal means beyond the ranges of natural definition. So, in reality when one combines the term New Age with science, what one is really saying is that paranormal and supernatural claims can be subsumed under scientific definitions, but of course this is a complete contradiction, if something is above or beyond the realms of natural definitions, then it is by definition, beyond the realms of science.

The reason that the New Age gurus like to combine New Age within a scientific definition, is to raise it to a new level of credibility, simply through definitions. If you combine Science with New Age in a new definition of New Age Science , it leads to a gullibility in being swallowed as something it's not. By simply adding science to the definition New Age, then the mystic gurus are more able to 'peddle their wares' with an air of 'credibility' beyond that of simply calling it New Age. But at the end of the day, it is just mysticism and there is no science to be had.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Lou Darvas Course
o Discover how to draw cartoons, with famous cartoonist Lou Darvas!

Friday, 27 July 2007

The Idiocy of Intelligent Design

The 'new' Creationists, have changed the label but it is the same 'act'. Creationism has been clothed in the label of Intelligent Design. In reality there is no difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. The Intelligent Design movement was started by the Discovery Institute, which was founded by ex-lawyer Phillip E. Johnson.

Phillip E.Johnson, in defending Intelligent Design, does not produce any evidence, that could hold it up as a serious alternative to evolution by Natural Selection. Rather, he uses clever and manipulative lawyer speak, that confuses and befuddles the minds of individuals, who have little scientific knowledge. This lawyer speak is very convincing to the general public. But even here most of Johnson's lawyer speak is not put forward as an attempt to prove Intelligent Design.. rather, most of his comments are in the negative, in denouncing science... In that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence in favor of Evolution by Natural Selection, is simply claimed to be falsely built up, in some kind of mass "Darwinian conspiracy" and it is Johnson and his institutes job to overthrow it.

In reality, the Discovery Institute have one goal... remove Evolution by Natural Selection from the science class and teach Intelligent Design as a scientific alternative. What this really means is: Replace a solid scientific theory with a pseudo scientific theory, that is fully grounded in religion and has no aspect in it's 'nature' that one could describe as scientific. Indeed, this is not just an attack on Evolution by Natural Selection, it is a direct attack on the scientific method.

Despite the claims of scientific integrity of the Discovery Institute, there is no science and Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Indeed, it would be a stretch to even call it a hypothesis. Intelligent Design is just creationism with another name and in reality there is nothing intelligent about it. Intelligent Design is merely substituted for Creationism, because Creationism carries connotations, which are not conducive to getting it taken seriously. Indeed, because of the embarrassing media coverage and court cases over creationism, it has become rather embarrassing to mention or push Creationism with any serious fervor.

So, Intelligent Design has 'taken the place' of Creationism and is being pushed as an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection. The Intelligent Design advocates, love the phrase "debating the controversy" and this is how they push Intelligent Design onto the public. They make the claim; that there is a controversy within Evolutionary Theory and that it needs to be debated. They then put Intelligent Design up as an alternative. But they do so, without presenting any scientific evidence, of why it should even be considered as an alternative.

But what is Intelligent Design? - All intelligent Design really claims, is that biological organisms are too complex to have come about by 'chance' and must of been designed. They give examples of inanimate objects to draw their analogies, so they will say something like... 'look how complex a computer is, such complexity demands a designer' and 'look, here we can see that computers are design by human beings'. They then apply the same 'logic' to biological organisms, by saying they are complex, thus, they must have a designer.

Of course in one respect biological organisms do have a designer. Evolution by Natural Selection, does design, in the sense that it evolves complexity through time. But it is a bottom up designer and not a tinkering 'watch maker'. As Professor Richard Dawkins has put it in the title of one of his books, Evolution by Natural Selection is a 'Blind Watchmaker'.

The fact is that there is no scientific proof for Intelligent Design, it is really just a substitute name for God, it just sounds more credible, when creationists try to make claim for it, being a scientific alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection... Intelligent Design just sounds more scientific than Creationism, which of course doesn't sound scientific at all, it immediately draws connotations with God. But in reality, Intelligent Design is identical to Creationism.

In there attempts to discredit Evolution by Natural Selection, the fact is that Intelligent Design advocates, are not doing any scientific work, that could overthrow it. They are not presenting any evidence. Rather, they are saying, we believe that Intelligent Design is a better alternative; but that is the best they can do.

As for their claims that evolution is just a theory of chance, this is absurd of course. It is a claim made by Intelligent Design advocates and not one being made by the scientific community. Of course Evolution by Natural Selection does involve an element of chance, in the random mutation of genetic information. But the Intelligent Design advocates of course fail to go on, to say, that Evolution is also a process of Natural Selection and natural selection is the exact opposite of chance - and this process guides the random process.

In reality, the Intelligent Design advocates are attempting a political ploy to overthrow science and replace it with religion. One of their tactics in doing this, is in calling Darwinism a religion. But the error here is that individuals involved in the many different scientific disciplines, that revolve around Evolution by Natural selection are not Darwinist's in the strict scientific sense... while most of them are not hostile to Darwin, the point is that science has moved on a long way since Darwin's day... We know a lot more about evolution today than Darwin did. So to call individuals who are pro science, in that they accept the science of evolution by Natural Selection... To call them Darwinists is naive and does suggest religious connotations. This is nonsense of course. Science unlike the dogma of religion, moves on and that includes the science of Evolution, which is drawn from many different scientific disciplines, such as Microbiology, Evo-Devo, Zoology, Anthropology, Palaeontology, Geology, Genetics... Indeed, all these scientific disciplines and many more still, converge in bringing more and more evidence, that supports Evolution by Natural Selection and this evidence is coming in thick and fast.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Writer's Block CD
o Experience creativity on demand, and eliminate Writer's Block for good!

Thursday, 26 July 2007

Christopher Hitchens the Anti-Theist

What is the difference between an anti-theist and an atheist? ...Christopher Hitchens seems to be responsible for popularizing the term - 'anti-theist'.

Hitchens, never shying away from controversial topics, is a freelance journalist and writer for publications, such as Vanity Fair and Slate and author of books such as 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger', 'Why Orwell Matters', 'Thomas Jefferson: Author of America' and most recently, the book... 'God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'.

Hitchens was also, famously called to give testimony at the Vatican against mother Teresa receiving a sainthood and he recently commented , in a debate with Al Sharpton... "That the old bitch got it anyway". He has also written a book on the not so 'saintly' Mother Teresa, entitled: 'The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice'.

Christopher Hitchens calls himself an anti-theist, rather than an atheist and he defines the difference as such. He notes that he has occasionally met atheists, who actually wish they could believe in God, but simply cannot, because there is no evidence to support such a position. Hitchens on the other hand, denounces this atheistic position and qualifies his own, by saying that, not only does he not believe in God, he is glad it isn't true.

So, an anti-theist not only doesn't believe in God, the idea that such a God could exist, is a rather unpleasant proposition. Indeed, who in all seriousness would want to live in a World, where an apparent dictator in the sky, watches your every waking and sleeping moment.

Christopher Hitchens, is the only journalist who has visited all three 'axis-of-evil' ...Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Hitchens said that when he was a child, he would try to imagine what Heaven was like and what it would be like to praise your creator in your every waking moment. After visiting North career, where they do exactly that, in praising their 'beloved leader' Kim Il-sung who is now dead, but bizarrely is still praised as the "Eternal President" and his son Kim Jong-il, only holds his 'presidential' position de facto... after his visit, Hitchens said he knew exactly what heaven would be like, it would be like living in North Korea... In other words Heaven would be 'hellish'.

Hitchens went on to say, that Heaven would be even more unpleasant than North Korea... 'At least when you die, you can leave North Korea, but you could never escape the eternal prayer state of Heaven'.

Hitchens commented that North Korea was disturbingly like George Orwell's 1984, where thought police check up on you. Indeed, when visitors enter North Korea, the tour guides are followed around by a 'thought policeman' who monitors the guides words. This is obviously a terrifying experience for the tour guide, one wrong word, could mean prison or even execution. Indeed, one is not even allowed to mention George Orwell, the subject is a big, no no. Another bizarre behavior, which appears very 'Orwellian' ..when tourists do visit, the North Koreans are not aloud eye contact with the visitors, they can be seen walking along, eyes looking at the ground, almost robot like as tourists walk past. This bizarre behavior has been documented on film and can be watched on YouTube... It reminds me of a staircase scene in a Hollywood movie called Equilibrium starring Christian Bale, where all the individuals on the staircase walk in 'military strides' and look like non-thinking robots.

The children of North Korea suffer the worst mental child abuse one could imagine. From dawn till dusk, they learn nothing but words and praise for Kim Il-sung... School is really one long prayer session.

When Kim Il-sung died, there was mass hysteria among the population. There seemed to be genuine grief, with men and women weeping and shaking uncontrollably. If one has been indoctrinated, on a daily never ending basis, with the belief that your president is more than a president and is the 'Great Leader' and your mind is indoctrinated with this day after day for almost every waking moment, then it becomes a 'truth' of the mind. These people genuinely believe in the 'Godly' status of Kim Il-sung and when he 'disappeared up into the clouds' ...They asked 'oh why did you leave us,Kim Il-sung'.

It is hardly surprising that many Christian fundamentalists are so offended by Hitchens. Not only is he denouncing the possibility of God, because there is no evidence for the concept, but on top of that, he is saying it is an immoral belief to hold in the first place. Because God is not only a non-provable concept, it is not a morally praiseworthy one. On top of that, Heaven would not be a wonderful place, it would be a 'living hell'.

Hitchens makes the point that we are innately good and the World would be better of without religion and quite simply, as his book title say: 'God is not Great'.

I for one Agree with Christopher Hitchens and would quite happily call myself an anti-theist. Not only do I not believe in God, I also hold that the monotheistic Gods held up by the three major religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are fundamentally bad concepts and should not be held up as forces for good.

Book Reference: 'God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' - by Christopher Hitchens

Film Reference: 'Equilibrium' - starring Christian Bale, David Barrash, Sean Bean, and Francesco Cabras




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Nick Daws Course
o Classic ground-breaking course shows how to write any book in under a month

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Religious Exploitation of a Child (Marjoe Gortner)

Who is Marjoe Gortner? - Marjoe is an American born, former evangelical and childhood preacher and was ordained when he was just 4 years old. The name Marjoe, is a coupling of the names Mary and Joseph. If you wanted to do a serious study into child abuse, through religious exploitation, then you could do little better, than to start by looking into the childhood of Marjoe Gortner.

Marjoe seemed to have a natural talent for public speaking and this was exploited to the full by his parents. His father would present him, fully suited to the media, who would be surprised by his 'adult demeanor' and verbal dexterity.

Marjoe was trained in gestures and articulation by his father; a pentecostal minister. He was essentially groomed to preach and this was exploited to the full.

Marjoe was drawn to public awareness, through an award winning documentary called 'Marjoe'. In this documentary a curly haired boy, can be seen ranting and raving, about the sins of the World and how the unrighteous are going straight to hell. He was like a mini version of Ted Haggard or Pat Robertson.

His verbal virtuosity, was also directed by a set of hidden commands from his mother, she would have key words like 'Jesus' if he was talking to slowly or 'glory be to God' if he needed to speed up. There were even verbal triggers at the point where as Marjoe put it "you've got the people where you want them, now take some money'.

It could be fairly said, that the media, was as much to blame for the exploitation as the parents, it made good television and great headline stories. Nobody seemed to stand up and say there is something rather creepy and not quite right about this. Indeed, the parents fed off the media interest and the fascination with Marjoe grew and grew. His parents even arranged for him to performed a wedding ceremony, in front of the camera, for Paramount Studios.

Marjoe would even bless little bottles of water and sell them to his 'followers'. And Marjoe as well as being a preacher became a rather good businessman. It was estimated that the Marjoe family amassed around three million US dollars.

Marjoe and his parents spent much of the time on the road, traveling from State to State and preaching in one town after another. When he was not preaching, Marjoe was having Biblical passages 'hammered' into his brain... Not only so he knew them, but so that he knew them 'backwards' and could repeat them verbatim. In learning passages from the Bible, If marjoe was not doing as well as his mother would like, she would sometimes smother him with a pillow or hold his head under a water faucet (according to Marjoe) , but always being careful not to put marks on his body... The last thing she would want, when he had to perform in front of an audience.

It is surprising how many ministers stood up at the time and said that it was an exploitation of the church and several individuals, when referring to the wedding ceremony he performed, called it an insult to the sanctity of the marriage ceremony. But it is strange that very few individuals, recognized the most disgusting aspect of the whole sordid business, the exploitation of a child.

When Marjoe was 16, his father ran of with the money and because of the disharmony with his mother they split-apart too. Marjoe spend several years after this as a drifter. He got into the film industry as an actor, but had mediocre success. He left the film industry and is now involved in sponsorship work in several different industries.

Marjoe Gortner, to his credit, had a 'guilty conscious' about his 'fire and brimstone, 'your going straight to hell' preaching, that he had inculcated into the minds of the gullible... and he did a final 'sermon tour' with film crew in tow. When he wasn't preaching, he was backstage talking to the camera crew and revealing all the exploitation trickery, to grow the 'Marjoe bank account'.

The one saving grace for Marjoe Gortner is that even when he was preaching, he said, he never really believed any of it. Unlike many adult preachers who do 'apparently believe their own hype (or do they really), Marjoe saw through the whole thing as a set-up-job, simply to exploit the masses of non-thinking dupes. Thus, when he was old enough to stand on his own two feet, he bust the whole thing wide open, in the Marjoe documentary.

Nobody could of course blame marjoe for exploiting the gullible. The blame lies directly with the parents and indirectly with the media. The parents of course, exploited their child for money and at the expense of a normal childhood. But without the obsessive media coverage, then perhaps it would not have continued as long as it did.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Genius Mindset Kit
o Unlock your inner Einstein, with this cheat's guide to genius!

Tuesday, 24 July 2007

Is Atheism a more Moral Position than Theism

Christopher Hitchens, freelance journalist and writer for magazines like Slate and Vanity Fair and author of the book, 'God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' - made the point that: 'children do not have to be taught the Golden Rule' (treat others as you want to be treated). Now, children may need a friendly reminder, now and again, but for the most part, the Golden Rule is innate in us.

Hitchens went on to say, 'why do many of us voluntarily give blood, religious or not, not only that, we positively enjoy knowing we are helping out a fellow human being.

Most atheists tend to hold that a baby is born innocent and if treated with love and respect will naturally grow up, to love and respect others. Religion and most positively the three major monotheism's start from the opposite premise, we are born innately wicked and thus, a set of religious dogmas has to be followed, to hold that 'innate' evil in check. It is not surprising that many children who grew up in strict Catholic households, have had their minds poisoned with this vile nonsense and it had a devastating effect on their entire lives, to the point where many of them, were so inculcated with the belief in sin on a deep subconscious level, that they grew up, with the incapacity to hold on to a loving relationship. Much the same can be said, for many Muslims today.

But what is important to understand, is that morality has nothing to do with religion or atheism, morality is not a synonym for either atheism or religion. Our morality comes out of our humanity as first cause. This is why the majority of moderate theists, are good and by the same token, so are atheists. Note, I didn't say 'moderate' atheists, the reason for that, is that I see no evidence for atheist extremism and thus the term moderate atheist would be 'null and void' ...The same cannot be said for religion of course. there is plenty of ordinary and extra ordinary violence, created in the name of religion. That is why I used the qualifier, moderate religion, as apposed to extreme.

It seems to be the case, that as long as one is bought up in a loving household, or at the very least, a relatively loving one, as compared to the majority, then that in itself, is enough for one to grow up, with an innate sense of responsibility, in being a reasonable and moral human being... That is all it takes.

Now atheists can of course do criminal things. But what one cannot do of course, is find a causal link between atheism and the criminal act perpetrated. How often have you heard stories in the media of people being convicted of crimes, which they perpetrated, directly because of their atheism, I cannot personally think of even one of the top of my head. Now, there may well be the occasional exception of someone committing a crime, directly because of their atheism, but the point is that such incidence, if they do occur, must be very rare and I challenge anyone to point to any modern or past crime that was directly caused by atheism...

I'm sure many theists will now be shouting at the computer screen, and saying 'Stalin' and 'Hitler' ...This of course is a 'straw man'. No historian is seriously blaming atheism for Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, at the Nuremberg trial, after the Second World War, nobody in the court room, mentioned atheism as a cause for the Nazis behavior... The same cannot be said for religion of course. You can find stories of crimes in the media, that are only caused because of religion and without religion as a direct link, such crimes would never have happened.

It should also be noted, that there are statistically, far more religious people in prison than there are atheists, this is a statistical fact. But even here, a point is being missed. One could of course say that most of the religious people in prison, did not commit their crimes, because of the religion, but of course the same applies to the atheist inmates too. But one can say one thing for certain, the meta analysis, between the statistical numbers, suggests that the only reason that there are statistically more theist prisoners than atheist is exactly because of religion.

I said earlier, that morality really has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Well I now want to add a qualifier so this makes a little more sense. Now, although atheism does not directly make someone a more moral person than 'some' theists, there does seem to be an indirect reason why 'most' atheists are more moral than 'some' theists. The reason quite simply seems to be, that an atheist naturally, has not got the excess 'baggage' of mysticism beclouding their mind, which could possibly lead them into committing acts, which most individuals would consider to be less than human. In many such cases, such acts of violence are committed only because of a literal interpretation of scripture or they were, indirectly advised to commit such acts by priests of the Church.

So, the final point is that, humanity is naturally moral and when someone is behaving immorally, our human nature leads us to look for reasons. The simple fact is and I am absolutely convinced of this, if religion was taken out of the World, it would be a safer and more moral place to live in. It is only the excuse of religious dictates, that leads to crimes against humanity, that otherwise would not occur. Religion is often the catalyst, that allows for the most heinous crimes, including, suicide bombing, beheading, the severing of limbs and all kinds of torture. Now, most of these atrocities today, are of course done in the name of Islam and not Christianity or Judaism.... But, as long as religion remains a force in the world, then it always has the potential to lead to the worst in us and cut us of from our innate humanity.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Ultimate Registry Cleaner
o Put an end to slow bootups & computer problems, with the world's leading registry cleaner!

Sunday, 22 July 2007

Who is James Randi?

James Randi is a stage magician, illusionist and well known skeptic of the paranormal. He has spent over 30 years of his life debunking paranormal and supernatural claims, that mystics often hold-up as real phenomena within physical reality. They claim to have powers such as Crystal Healing, Mind Reading, The ability to move and bend objects, water divining, spiritual healing, Tarot Card reading, talking to the dead (Michael Shermer, of Skeptics Magazine, made the humorous comment that: "Talking to the dead is easy, getting them to talk back, is the hard part"). ...The list of paranormal and supernatural claims goes on and on.

The James Randi institute, has held up a cash prize for many years, to anyone who can prove supernatural or paranormal phenomena, and at the moment, it stands at One Million US dollars (The $1 million challenge). As James Randi has said himself, once these individuals attempt to prove their claim for special powers, under scientific testing, 'the phenomena strangely disappears'.

Randi started out as a stage magician and illusionist and did some rather remarkable magic stunts, his career really took off, after showing two policeman, that he could break out of their handcuffs... utterly amazed, they gave him a dare, to try and break out of a prison cell, he did, he became a media sensation and his career took off. His daring escapades, led to comparisons with Harry Houdini (Randi wrote Houdini's biography). One of Randi's earlier stunts was an escape from a straight jacket, while suspended over Niagara Falls.

Randi drew his biggest media attention though, in his confrontation with Uri Geller, in the 1970's. Exposing him as a fraud. Geller sued Randi for $15000,000 dollars, Geller's suit was thrown out in 1995 and he was forced to pay $120,000 for filing a 'trivial' lawsuit.

Geller made a name for himself, through the apparently paranormal ability to effect objects. For example, Through his spoon bending trickery and other magical shenanigans, such as stopping watches, moving compass needles and mind reading... that still to this day, Geller claim are real paranormal phenomena and that he really does have special powers, to effect objects.

Geller was set to appear on America's, NBC, Johnny Carson Tonight Show. Carson had been a magician himself and was highly skeptical, he phoned James Randi up, the night before the show in which Geller was to appear. Randi advised Carson that they should provide their own props for Geller to work with and not let any of Geller's staff near them. The props included drawings sealed in an envelope and little metal cups with lids on (it was Geller's job to 'mentally deduce' which did not have water inside, just by passing his hands over them). It was painfully embarrassing to watch, almost cringe-worthy. Geller looked like a lost child and his attempts at psychic powers utterly failed (of course, if you don't use your own props, you cannot rig them).

What is startling, is that this event did not effect Geller's career, if anything it made Geller more popular, people seem to have an obsession with the 'mysterious'. As Randi himself said: "Even after this event, 'it still takes time for Geller's star to fade'.

I guess the real reason that Geller's popularity faded, is that you can only interest people with spoon bending so many times, the novelty soon wears off... Of course he had other gimmicks as well, such as moving compass needles and stopping watches, but they have all been shown to be magicians tricks and if you repeat the same trick over and over, people get bored.

Randi has had a highly successful media career and had several highly successful TV shows, that were networked in different countries. These programs revolved around, individuals claiming to have supernatural/paranormal abilities. They would come on his show, and going through a test set up by Randi, to prove or disprove their abilities. Such abilities of course have never been proved and the Randi Foundation Prize is still up for grabs.

In the days when Uri Geller was at the heights of his success, he had hoodwinked many individuals into believing he really did have paranormal abilities. He even fooled many scientists into believing his claims for such ability. But Randi made an important point, that scientists are not the best people to rely on, in trusting their 'common sense' when it comes to paranormal claims. Scientists seem to be just as capable of being hoodwinked as anyone else...

As Randi said, the best person to expose a charlatan, who is merely using a magician's trickery, is another magician and of course that is exactly what Randi does, in exposing fakers. The paranormal 'events', such as bending spoons with the mind, will be presented by the mystic and then James Randi will come along and do the same 'trick' ...But the difference is, he stands up and says it's just a magic trick, not only that, he shows the audience how the trick is done.

In one big stunt on Australian TV, he set up a water divining test. The ground was dug-up, water pipes were placed in holes and they were filled back in. This was all done 'behind-the-backs' of the water diviners, so they had no idea where the pipes were. The pipes were filled with water, it was then a water diviners job to dowse for water. The results came in and were negative for the dowsers.

So why does James Randi do it. Well, he believes that these individuals who make claims for paranormal/supernatural powers, often set themselves up as authority figures and exploit the vulnerable. The healer for example may claim to have the ability to cure cancers and other diseases. What is so pitiful is that this exploitation is often usually aimed at the desperate and vulnerable. These individuals are often at their wits end and out of desperation, will try anything.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Genius Mindset Kit
o Unlock your inner Einstein, with this cheat's guide to genius!