Far from it.

A lot of his shows, especially ‘Messiah’ and ‘Seance’, highlight just how strong the power of suggestibility is. Also, his book ‘Tricks of the Mind’ has a great section called ‘Anti-Science, Pseudo-Science and Bad Thinking’ which debunks a lot of popular woo, such as alternative medicine, mediums and the supernatural in general. The book’s list of suggested further reading includes Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, etc. It’s worth a look if you get the chance. His TV shows are entertaining as well, but often quite frustrating as he doesn’t always explain how he pulls off his tricks.

In terms of exposing the reality behind claims of the supernatural, Brown is probably one of the most interesting – and effective – people out there. He just doesn’t get as much publicity as he’s (far) less confrontational about it than Dawkins.

For example, if one Christian sharply criticize another for drinking alcohol, the person who has been rebuked may be angry and motivated to ask, “Which one of us is right?” and do some intellectual digging.

I guess that sort of reconsideration would often lead people into other, more liberal churches. However, if they are aware of atheism and even know a few atheists it might become an option for them.

De-conversion is often a long process, and it probably involves lots of interplay between emotional responses and rational processes. Understanding what happened, let alone articulating it, is incredibly difficult.

I agree, although I’m reading plenty of de-conversion stories and trying to understand.

My own de-conversation (from pretty lightly held Christian beliefs) probably came from the lack of emotional connection I had to them. I believed in a god because everyone around me did, but there was no “relationship” between me and it. So when I started learning about alternative religions, deism, agnosticism and atheism, I pretty quickly discarded my religious beliefs.

Emotions can be an excellent motivating nudge, but to de-convert based on emotional reasons alone is just as bad as converting based on those reasons alone.

I think that’s an excellent point.

Thus, I felt that it was perfectly reasonable to discount the specific claim that God will reveal himself to anyone who welcomes him into their heart even though it would not have been reasonable, on that basis alone, to say God does not exist at all.

Hmm… I think you could say from your experience that a god who “reveals himself to people who welcome him into their heart” does not exist, although that’s probably not that convincing to people other than you (or those who’ve had the same experience – Hi there!).

When some people “just feel in their hearts” that God had revealed himself or was with them, it’s really not very convincing to everyone else. There’s no way we can independently examine what other people feel. It’s more of an “argument from personal experience” (or in our case, lack of). In the same way, Christians would probably blame you for not “really trying with an open mind” or “misinterpreting God revealing himself” – which would make their God a bit naff, but still, it’s understandably not an argument everyone can appreciate.

I want to highlight an extremely important point that you hint at but do not say explicitly. Emotions can be an excellent motivating nudge, but to de-convert based on emotional reasons alone is just as bad as converting based on those reasons alone.

That was my point, this is my tangent. =) Emotions alone can be a good reason to accept or reject a belief when that belief deals with emotions specifically. For example, I went through a period where I sincerely asking with an open heart for God to show himself to me, and I felt nothing. Thus, I felt that it was perfectly reasonable to discount the specific claim that God will reveal himself to anyone who welcomes him into their heart even though it would not have been reasonable, on that basis alone, to say God does not exist at all.