Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer

[RedskinRat]

Does God Have a Future? 12 part video debate

In one corner Shermer and Harris, in the other Chopra and some crazy bitch.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Does God Have a Future? 12 part video debate

In one corner Shermer and Harris, in the other Chopra and some crazy bitch.

That "crazy bitch" is Jean Houston, who has 2 Ph.D.'s and has published a number of intelligent and well-received books. I'm not saying that she is right in her claims but she deserves respect.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

That "crazy bitch" is Jean Houston, who has 2 Ph.D.'s and has published a number of intelligent and well-received books. I'm not saying that she is right in her claims but she deserves respect.

She won't get any from me. A Ph. D in religion? <point_laugh>

And don't get me started on the Ph.D. in psychology.....

She's the epitome of an intellectual BS artist who is an integral part of the reason the modern world (and by that I mean 'Kids today') is in decline.

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?

[saden1]

Deepak? He's one of the lamest hucksters on the planet. He is a class weasel on par with gurus and televangelists of the present and the past in selling crap to people for a handsome profit.

There is no sense in arguing with believers about religion because it really boils down to them having faith in something from nothing while being critical of nothing itself.

Two videos that might be of interest...

Dawkins exposes Deepak for the fraud he is:



A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

[RedskinRat]

Appreciated saden1.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

She won't get any from me. A Ph. D in religion? <point_laugh>

And don't get me started on the Ph.D. in psychology.....

She's the epitome of an intellectual BS artist who is an integral part of the reason the modern world (and by that I mean 'Kids today') is in decline.

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

[Lotus]

Saden, you are correct that it is a pointless argument. Believers will support their arguments with presumptions which are not shared by non-believers. On the other hand, those claiming to use "pure" reason like Shermer not only bring their own set of presuppositions to the table, they also cannot use reason to debunk a reality which by definition is beyond human reason.

The history of Western philosophy is a history of failed attempts to either prove or disprove the existence of God and this debate will do nothing to change that history.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

I just want to add that having a Ph. D. in theology is a great accomplishment. At the end of the day though we arrive at what Thomas Paine said:

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

-The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by saden1

I just want to add that having a Ph. D. in theology is a great accomplishment. At the end of the day though we arrive at what Thomas Paine said:

Well done.

Some people think that theologians are all religious people. But you don't have to be a religious person to study religion, just as you don't have to be a rock to study geology.

I know some very un-religious people with Ph.D.'s in religion. They study religion so that they can understand reality in a deep, educated way with perspectives not unlike those of Thomas Paine.

Given the violence that sometimes stems from religion, we need people who understand religion in advanced ways, although some people fail to recognize this need.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Does God Have a Future? 12 part video debate

In one corner Shermer and Harris, in the other Chopra and some crazy bitch.

That uses LSD.

Credibility thrown right out the window....

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

That uses LSD.

Credibility thrown right out the window....

If there's going to be a relevant debate about the existence of God, I certainly wouldn't be sending up Chopra and Harris.

But again to Lotus & saden's points, this debate has been going on for well over 2000 yrs. with no "winner".

[Lotus]

Saden and Sammy, I agree with your critiques of Chopra. He bamboozles people with cheap, shallow imitations of Hindu philosophy so that he can make a good living.

That said, Shermer is not a whole lot better. He often fails when it comes to an either/or fallacy. That is, he will say that his answer is right and the other answer is wrong, when in fact deep logical thinking reveals that both perspectives could be correct. Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, and Shermer regularly neglects this angle.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and,

Agree 100%.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?

Originally Posted by Lotus

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, and Shermer regularly neglects this angle.

Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.