Added: 1 year ago
From: AtheistMediaBlog
Views: 148,655
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (958)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Carl Jung would have destroyed Sam and Micheal. 

  • I am certain that Deepak cackles like a witch every time he checks his bank statement.Everything coming out of his mouth is complete nonsense but he has managed to create a financial empire by combining this new-age ... stuff with borrowed and bastardized science. He is at times, tedious, funny and a complete waste of oxygen.

  • Deepak should be dressed in a curly red wig and big floppy shoes 

  • Deepak is such a fucking idiot...

  • Thank you for posting this, AtheistMediaBlog.

  • The ONLY thing that Deepak got right was to open with a joke...

  • Deepak may as well be talking Legalese for all the sense he makes

  • Deepak needs to do some sit-ups.

  • There is such a lack of of Christians contending for faith on these comments. Sucks. I'm not even going to try to get into debate, because it'll be a handicapped match for certain.

  • @trealboihottie interesting point you make. they claim to care about truth and reason and science but all they do is scream like little babies with their fingers in their ears.... a cochophany of nonsense.

  • @tubebooboob No, you're just a piece of ignorant shit good luck being clueless about anything, ever.

  • @tubebooboob I know the truth hurts, that's why you're so mad.

  • @beetmatchfail I'm not mad at all. Furthermore, listening to you talking about truth is like listening to a dog try to explain calculus.

  • @tubebooboob You don't even have a valid point, that's why you're mad. That's why your life will never have value. I'm sorry.

  • @tubebooboob But please, continue being mad.

  • @tubebooboob Wow going over some of these comments it appears you're extremely defensive and practically all over what anybody and everybody says here. You're already far gone, and prove my point that not only are you mad, but that you're a fucking fool. U MAD. What an asshole.

  • Deepaks glasses says a lot about him

  • I think Deepak Chopra borrowed those glasses from Dame Edna Everage

  • Deepak isn't the idiot people make him out to be, he is however a self deluding maniac

  • Comment removed

  • If you're just starting out here, Mr./Mrs Viewer, allow me to warn you of what's to come.

    Deepak prattles on like a jackass. He will try to baffle with bullshit and "woowoo".

    Jean tells one million irrelevant stories, and waxes as poetically as possible. Meanwhile contributing nothing to the discussion

    Michael and Sam have the patience of saints. They calmly face-fuck the opposing arguements like BAUSES.

    So sit back, learn, and feel free to skip Jean's nonsense. You won't miss it.

  • deepack full o bullshit

  • @FrickinLaserBeam Theirs an old hermetic saying by the wise sages! it goes,"The lips of wisdom are closed, except; to the ears of understanding". When the pineal gland is fully developed, then their is no such thing as a substitute. Because such experience goes beyond any atheistic or religious dogmatic limitations. But anyway, enough said! take care!

  • @FrickinLaserBeam Actually,the greater truths can only come from esoteric experiences. Plain and simple!

  • Comment removed

  • 7:55 Harris: "The fuck is up with this guy?..."

  • I've seen this debate so many times now. Must say thanks, AtheistMediaBlog. All your uploads are worth watching.

  • is there a god? that is a question that is unanswerable due to the lack of evidence... let alone have a single dependent definition of 'god'.

  • Deepak should've had some help from John Hagelin instead of that passive woman

  • Is there a campaign to bring this man Chopra to justice ? The money he makes single-handedly seems to be much more than psychics. I seriously think the empire he(and others like him) have built would go a great distance in solving homelessness in America.

  • @test123ok yep indeed, that guy lives in a 2.5 million dollar house while he dennounces materialism

  • @diekontrolleure You are stupid ass number two

  • @test123ok how much do you give to the homeless?

  • @test123ok also you are a stupid ass

  • @tubebooboob cool story bro

  • 6:11 is when bullshit starts flowing

  • It must be easy being God, U get all the credit for doing NOTHING.

  • One telling sign that god has no future is that on almost every Youtube video (one of the biggest websites online) which deals with religion, the Top Comments are always from non-believers.

  • Mister Chopra is kind of silly: Selling renewed bad theology by advertising upgraded Science... Genius!

  • Does Deepak have Deep Pocket$ ?

  • @CosmicFork Yes, very deep, indeed...

  • The futility of debating theists is the fact that religious belief and faith are both unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Make believe is for children and should be relegated to the play ground and not adult intellectual discourse. I prefer ridicule. What is there to debate? Facts, reason and science trump assertions, wishful thinking and superstition. The argument is over before it begins.

  • @scotttebben

    I see you borrowed a part of that from....Thomas Jefferson? Well said.

  • @chebob2009 Thomas Jefferson was a Freemason, a group who require it's members to believe in a higher power/God.

  • @scotttebben Your comment doesnt make sense. Debate theists about what? First nonsensical part in less 6 words in. And then, ironically you went on to talk about ideas being distinct... you didnt even distinguish what you were talking about in the first sentence. Ridicule is idiotic. Funny enough you havent given any facts, or science... just assertions and wishful thinking.

  • @tubebooboob People like you will be gone from our society in a few mere generations.

  • @beetmatchfail Hey scumbag, you don't even know what kind of person I am let alone have a society. You're some piece of shit sitting behind his little computer. People like you will be gone from our society in a couple of generations or less.

  • Sam Harris' facial expressions when Deepak is talking are priceless.

  • Logically speaking, Deepak got destroyed.

  • @mmissinglink deepak didn't need to be there....his books do all the lying for him...

  • @heavypizza I cannot attest to whether or not he lies in his books or on stage (he does, to his credit, owns one of his mis-statements in the debate), I simply am convinced that he is talking nonsensical gibberish that he himself believes to be true. That, in fact, may be more dangerous to our planet than someone who knows s/he is not telling the truth purposefully. Seriously, consider that.

  • Religionists and 'spiritualists' like Deepak and Jean (and my ex) could just as easily replace their "god" with the "Giant Octopus Deity" or any wholly self-fabricated supernatural (purposefully, to not be susceptible to any human ability or capacity to substantiate) concoction and they could use the same arguments resulting in the same irrational nonsense. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

  • (0:35) Ummm, pretty sure it was john proctor.... too bad science, late to the party

  • I just watched the entire debate and resurrected back here to the first clip to warn you that you are about to be increasingly frustrated by Chopra. Feel free to skip though his - often offensive - blabbering. Enjoy.

  • Chopra speaks so much shit it's mind boggling and he won't settle on any point he's pressed on . . He has to wriggle out by saying no that's not what I meant and then lies and misleads.

  • perfectly efficient system which can do so itself.

  • We can say something like that because if there is a God who created the universe then we have no idea what a non-designed universe looks like or if such is possible. First of all we don't even know how God orchestrates the universe and the natural phenomenon in it. The universe and everything that exist could simply be set in motion. If God created the universe, it would seem like quite a task to have responsibility for every single system taking place at once. Instead of just creating a

  • michaels shermers first state about why he doesnt believe in God is probably the most commonly held opinion of non-believers and skeptics. I hear scientists say they find no design. What the hell are you attempting to look for in your search for God? A man with a long beard, hiding behind a cloak who is orchestrating the works of the universe like some Wizard of Oz-esque scenario. First of all saying there is no design a very large statement to make with limited knowledge of our universe.

  • "Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."

  • 7:13 - 7:18

    10 followed by a mill TFTFTFTFT 10 followed by

    LMAOOOO

  • one person is missing there - hitchens.

  • @hYdEdesign Seriously, Harris and Shermer seem to not even have been told what the debate was supposed to be about. They're spouting nonsense that has nothing to do with anything Chopra and Houston are saying. It seems they're used to debating Christians, and didn't bother to prepare anything for this type of discussion

  • I guess Hitchens could contribute something. Harris and Shermer made no sense, and were destroyed by Chopra and Houston

  • Deepak Chopra makes me want to punch a bag of kittens.

  • Comment removed

  • that guy is tryna say a "GOD" caused evolution if thats the case why isnt in the bible then ?

  • Damn Chopra just embarassed himself with all that irrelevance.

  • I've got an erection.

  • @ImGladImBrad Some people question the existence of god, some people believe it on blind faith, and some people know better than to waste time doing either.

  • As a fan of Deepak Chopra, I feel obliged to show him some positivity amongst all of this criticism. I understood what he was saying, and I think there was great consideration and genuineness in what he said. I found his points fascinating and valid, and I greatly respect him despite seemingly being the only one. He is as much a learner as a teacher, though I think most of you would learn a lot about having a compassionate character by modeling after Deepak.

  • @BassicallyMusic Deepak? Compassionate? If you mean megalomaniacal charlatan who abuses the faith and emotional investments his flock put in him, then, yeah, he's compassionate. Wait until you come down from the LSD and let me know if you still understand what he was saying in any concrete sense.

  • @BassicallyMusic

    You aren't the only one. It's funny, I don't find myself agreeing with some of Chopra's more radical claims. However, when it comes to his level of intellect and passion, he is unrivaled. He has a much deeper grasp on reality than his simple minded opponents.

  • @circusOFprecision U see, what many commenters dont at all understand is: Deepak Chopra has years of actual spiritual experience under his belt. When such hidden truths are tapped into, then comes a much more transcendent domain of knowledge,wisdom and understanding. Their are things that he knows which he cant even speak on. Because certain things can only be grasped after their experienced from individuals as well as certain collectives.

    He knows what they know not! Believe me!

    Peace out!

  • @ESOTERICOATH For how many years did our spiritual experience give us the obvious truth that huricanes were caused when Posiden was angry? That the world was flat and the center of the universe? If humans have learned anything in the last 400 years, I hope they have learned that one's individual intuition is an inept substitute for objective knowledge.

  • Oh man! Sam Harris and Michael Shermer are two tough, patient, and smart men! The fact they could sit there for more than an hour and argue with this idiot (Chopra) is commendable! He tries to package new-age nonsense in a scientific manner.

    He is incoherent, unclear, and way too emotional about his subject matter. I admire people who can calmly convey their point. Chopra just squirms, yells, and behaves childishly.

    And wtf is up with the flashy eyeglasses?

  • @halsviews

    I wouldn't say tough, patient, and smart. I would say they are both fairly respectfully, but only in front of crowds. Behind the scenes they make Chopra look like a saint. As for their patience and intelligence, they are actually a couple of simpletons, nowhere near the intellect of their opponents. Also, their style of debate is much more accessible to other simpletons, such as the average person. Harris especially is a joke, Shermer I can stomach, even though I disagree with him.

  • Comment removed

  • I have read some of Deepak's work. It is an amazing spiritual achievement — a fine example of the greatest Zen-like skill — to write so many words poetically strung together which have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTENT.

  • @4:04

    Deepak unknowingly destroys his own Gaga

  • Funny to see how many intelligent people we got here.. on youtube.. Suddenly everyone is an Einstein or a Socrates - I would love to see you go on this show and argue better than Deepak Chopra.. Has any of you bashing him, ever read one of his books.. If you had you would start to understand what the hell he is actually "preaching" about? It's not about what you believe in, but how you make the best of your self.. Read his books, then come back and argue.

  • @aravom111 Well done aravom111 If someone is going to give an opinion about something, at least and for the minimum respect of others they need to read at least one of his books and understand it, then give honest and authentic comments. Then comments are more appreciated, and then they will be able to contribute with the context, otherwise what are you people talking about it?

  • @aravom111 Everyone who reads a book by this charlatan adds to his unearned legitimacy. It's obvious from this public debate that he has simply learned to repackage scientific phrases into the sort of easily digestible hollow rhetoric that takes the place of proper education for a lot of people. I'm not trying to be a dick saying, it's simply sad. Have a nice walk, pet your cat, talk to someone. Don't waste life on this faker.

  • I think Jean's real problem is she thinks she is in a dialectic whereas the other three are in a debate. That's why she seems out of place.

  • comparing god with science is like comparing apples with oranges it cant be done. what created the machine cannot be compared with how the machine functions.

  • @joekikass3000 The fact of the matter is there is no reason to believe the machine was created by an intelligence. And regardless of that, religion does NOT have sources of information others do not have. They are no more in a position to make claims about the why or who than you or me.

  • @MegaAwesomePossem You can't seriously believe that the machine just popped into existence, and who said we must look to religion for evidence, you can't seriously be wasting your time debunking man made fairy tales thinking that those are the only possible places to look for intellegence. My point is that if theres an intelligence its much more clever and larger than you, me, or any silly religion can even possibly comprehend, and theres absolutely no evidence that it does or does not exist.

  • @joekikass3000 If we both agree there is no evidence for or against an intelligence, meaning there's no reason whatsoever to believe there is one, what's the problem?

  • @MegaAwesomePossem there isnt a problem and theres no reason to have the wrong debate if you were to discuss such a problem, Theres no reason to take a firm stance without lack of knowledge. so why are you so quick to conclude that there isn't an intelligence, even though theres no clear answer. I advocate agnosticism in the fact that there is a stalemate in this debate, and that there is no reason to conform

  • @joekikass3000 Agnosticism is not appropriate in a situation like this. Just because you can't prove it negative or positive, does not mean each answer is equally likely. And I never concluded there is no intelligence, and I do not have a firm stance one way or the other. I said there is no reason whatsoever to believe there is an intelligence that created the universe, which is true. Now to say that it's equally likely that one did simply because there's no evidence for it, is wrong.

  • @MegaAwesomePossem agnosticism is appropriate becuz there is no true alternaive to what created this universe and it seems as if you have picked a side because you keep repeating that there isn't a reason for belief, There's no reason to come up with any conclusion based on what we don't know. We can't make assumptions. Like for example we can't just assume that there is no where else in this universe that life can or does exist just because it is impossible to explore the universe

  • @joekikass3000 Agnosticism is not appropriate and i'll explain why. Just because some people choose to believe there is an intelligence that created the universe, with NO EVIDENCE (this is important) whatsoever, does NOT mean that is as likely as there not being a creator. No evidence = no reason to believe. Very simply. If you still don't get it, i'll refer you to Bertrand Russel's tea pot. Look it up. It's a logical fallacy to think something is likely just because you can't disprove it.

  • @joekikass3000 And there most likely is an alternative, just one that we do not know off. That is not by far a good enough reason to say "God did it." Because you're only making more unnescesary assumptions that way.

    You're correct in saying there's no reason to come up with any conclusion based on what we don't know, which is why I say I don't know how the universe began. Saying god did it is only taking steps back, it won't get you anywhere, and again, there's no reason to believe in one.

  • @MegaAwesomePossem im not argueing god did it and that there are no alternatives, I'm arguing that there is no need to dismiss arguments for an unanswered question and i would agree that just like the pple who conclude without question that there cant be a god that the pple who believe without question that there is a god are just as ignorant. and i do believe intellegent design if it does exist does not have to be restricted to religous portrayals of a man with a beard named god who "did it"

  • @MegaAwesomePossem and like i said comparing the function to its origin is completely pointless if you want to discover intellegence, and you are wasting your time when seriously and passionately debating Darwin's Origin of Species with Grimm Brothers Little red riding hood, for accuracy.

  • @4:30 Because I'm sick of people using the word "belief" incorrectly...

    belief: 1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

    2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

    A belief can be based on evidence, although it doesn't have to be, since it's merely what one accepts as true. A fact, on the other hand, is that which conforms to reality. You can have your own beliefs, but you can't have your own facts.

  • @Evasen Either he believes his obviously wrong and and unfounded claims, or he's in it for the money.

  • @MegaAwesomePossem He's in it for the money, IMHO.

  • @Evasen And what does "grasping things hollistically" even mean? You are doing the exact same silly thing Deepak is, which is claiming he's right, but I just don't "get" it. That is a cop out move, and it is used only by people who have unfounded hypothesese and cannot provide any evidence for their claims. He is combining unfalsifiable metaphysical concepts with things such as quantum mechanics, which is simply wrong. What he is doing is NOT science, and his claims are not founded in reality.

  • @MegaAwesomePossem Yep. The obvious point is that he "grasps" at quantum physics (something he doesn't understand) to sound mystically profound. The fact that he himself has no idea what he's saying exemplifies how he scams the gullible.

  • @dan91709 Exactly. Which is perfectly exemplified by people like Evasen who claim hes some spiritually profound intellectual who speaks of things so impeccably enlightened that actual scientists simply "dont understand".

  • @MegaAwesomePossem Yep. It's a sure sign of scam or delusion when only the "enlightened" can understand the workings of their feeble nonsense.

  • @Evasen Spiritual people do not have sources of information that we do not have. They can tell you as much about the why as you and I can. And that is after inferring there even is a why. The fact of the matter is I have a limited knowledge of the subjects Deepak Chopra talks about, and from that knowledge I am able to tell what he is saying is simply incorrect. It's no more complicated than that.

  • @Evasen I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. If the fact that an esteemed physcicist such as Leonard Mlodinow saying that deepak's use of quantum mehcanics terms is simply wrong doesn't convince you, it shows exactly how much you value actual science. It's so glaringly obvious that Deepak's constantly trying to gain applause, and not truth. He talks about bringing people together, and love, and creativity, without offering any factual foundation, purely to get people to support him.

  • @Evasen Actually if you claim everything he says makes complete sense, that shows right away how little you know about the subjects they are discussing.

  • The minute Michael Shermer rolled out straight factual misrepresentations of Dionysus I knew he wasn't worth listening to. Anyone who simply accepts what he has clearly read from some third rate piece of scholarship without checking is a fool.

    The sparagmos and omophagia of Dionysium traditional worship is not in memory of a God nor a transubstantiation. Sigh.

  • 10 to the minus 43...million million million million million million million SECONDS! stoopid.

  • Upgrade science? Look at a deeper level of reality. I can't wait for Chopra to get the Nobel prize and more importantly, I can't wait to see all the fantastic applications his deeper science must bear, if mundanel science has brought us planes, computers etc.

    A may be waiting a while...

  • Comment removed

  • I could never take someone seriously who wears such glittery glasses. He reminds me of Dame Edna Everage.

  • bravo Deepak!

    Bravo

    we look forward to your new book.

    War of the Worldviews

    excellent title and co author

  • i can't.. seriously i can't listen to intro... Science by freaking definition can't bring you closer to any supernatural being, including god. While my favorite public educator Richard Dawkins says that the "god" question is a science question, but he meant only christian god (theistic god, that changed our natural order). Even thou, but i doubt that science can bring you closer to even such type of god.

  • @InnerFood I do think there are seperate views on this. But the main point is rather than science is the method of study of the world around us. Thus, if God is in or acts in the world around us, God is testable by the methods of science.

    This is where I always stutter on the word supernatural. Truly supernatural God(s) cannot be tested by science. But many things we once viewed as supernatural have seen been shown to be natural, yet still amazingly intricate.

  • @Solensherre I actually agree with you, with only small 'but'. You see, by an old scientific note "we can't distinguish between two universes, where one is created by god and other don't". I would, actually, go further. I think (methodologically) that you can't find observation X, that would lead to a supernatural explanation Y. In ALL history of science, from Ptolemy to Newton and Laplass, god was assigned to unknown, like an old "god of the gaps", i just have no space here to count them...

  • well thats irony for you, a man who has worked with the likes of Bohm, Feynman, Hawkings and Penrose is now suggesting that we are 3d holographic images projected from a 2d god( 10^123BITS(max.info) existing on our future/cosmological horizon. Sarfatti also claims that our future horizon has a singularity attached to it just like our past particle horizon(big bang), tongue in cheek he refers to them as the alpha and the omega. It seems retrocausality is on its way back, from the future.

  • I would love to know what Sam Harris must be thinking when Chopra is drowning himself in his own babble.

  • The best explanation for our interconnected relationship with the cosmos is the following: we have found DNA in meteorites.. And testing revealed adenine and guanine were present which are the two FUNDAMENTAL components of DNA called nucleobases. Specifically, CM2 meteorites. So, Yes we are connected with our cosmos scientifically, but to say some intelligent-being has done this? Well, you need empirical evidence to push for that Mr. Chopra, and you did not provide that. This life is it.

  • LOL... Chopra.... the best solution is the simplest on my ass.... the best solution is the correct solution.

  • @imita01

    I guess he trying to use Ockham’s Razor to justify his position lol

  • @wh4tevar Yeah, that's exactly what he's trying to do. But, he has nothing to back up any claims. Philosophical wuwu thrown together with scientific words is sitll philosophical wuwu. LOL.

  • I am not here to do anything but take your money with a lot of fluffy talk.

  • i always get annoyed when chopra says things like "i want to have a week long debate with a sceptic in front of a live adiuance" I just want to scream no thats our move you don't get to pretend as if you want something like that you liar. he is a moneygrubber and an exploiter

  • Deepak Chopra. WTF is he saying?

  • @PravNJ - WTF is Chopra saying? Exactly what your instincts tell you: Nothing at all. Chopra is a bigoted, egotistical, rude, arrogant idiot and huckster of the lowest order. Just the fact that he's wearing diamond encrusted spectacles while preaching about spirituality and attacking the same science that gave him glasses in the first place should tell us all something about this asswipe. Chopra's ill conduct and idiocy throughout this debate speaks for itself.

  • @WolfStatic

    Very good, 100 % accurate

  • Comment removed

  • @WolfStatic

    He's not attacking science. But perhaps he's attacking your religion, scientism.

  • @circusOFprecision Here we go again, science is not a religion. Not in any way whatsoever. It's not dogmatic, there is no unchanging doctrine, and it is not based on faith. It is the opposite of all those things, and therefor the opposite of religion. Deepak Chopra isn't doing anything besides talking nonsense and misleading people.

  • @MegaAwesomePossem

    I think the word "precision" should not be in this person's profile name

  • @MegaAwesomePossem

    I didn't say science was religion, so your entire comment is a complete and utter waste. Scientism refers to people who consciously, or subconsciously exalt science to the same level of religion. In other words, their belief system hijacks science and uses it as a means to prove their metaphysics. Since you are one of those people, it seems, you will deny what I am saying. Ironically, that only proves me more correct.

  • @circusOFprecision Well let me first say I did not know scientism was an actual thing as you desrcribe it, I assumed you meant it as so many people do, which is to say you I thought you meant science is just as dogmatic as religion. I do not hold any metaphysical beliefs. I was under the assumptions you were arguing FOR Deepak Chopra, it now seems you are arguing against him. In which case, I agree with what you are saying, and I appologize for the misunderstanding.

  • @circusOFprecision - Chopra doesn't attack science? Now THAT'S a first... By the way, science is a METHOD not a belief system.

  • @WolfStatic yet I bet you more people are willing to give him money in the time the video took than people willing to learn about science....is way to hard to read, better to believe some invisible guy made it all up.

  • @WolfStatic

    "Applauds"

  • @PravNJ I dont know but I really want a Curry now.

    I do agree with everything dawkings and harris say, deeply. I am non religious and can not believe in a personal god (Einstein), but he is 100% correct that what happened before the big bang is UN-Knowable.

    Harris how ever seems to think he has the answer. How can anyone know the answer to the un knowable, something scientists will tell you with ease "we will never know". I only wish Harris wasnt so smug or arrogant.

  • @PravNJ

    lol, I seriously can't listen to him for too long before I realize I'm staring at the wall and have to rewind.

  • @PravNJ

    Haven't you been told yet?

    He says the objective subjectivity is a non-locality on a quantum level, isnt it obvious?

    Like duuh, how can you not understand his obvious scam*ahem*spirituality

    ;-)

  • deepak loves his pseudo science in the sense that he wont deny science, except when it comes to his beliefs, then he uses scientific sounding words to try and justify his unscientific, lacking of evidence, ridiculous beliefs

  • @wheresmywhiskey85 : What beliefs are those? Id like to know, because I am from the East, so if its eastern beliefs, how is that ridiculous? If its not, forget I said anything.

  • Chopra is a charming charlatan.

  • @paxpaul You've got to love how as soon as new scientific horizons are breached which refute all religious doctrine about the universe, he's extremely quick to stick his thumb on it and say "well, clearly this is the work of an all wise, mighty first mover". Well, if we'd used his logic when earlier such discoveries were made we'd have no scientific progress at all, and yet he proclaims to hold science in the highest of esteem. A charlatan is right.

  • @InnerSmile72 Wrong. Dr. Chopra is pro-science and I assume pro-knowledge-that-is-beyond-s­cience, because the way many have a false and reductionist a belief that approximately states: science is everything or the only thing. They are ignorant. "Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification — the art of discerning what we may with advantage omit." -Karl Popper

  • @InnerSmile72 Do tell. Why do you claim that the so called skeptic community attacks him? How would you like if someone attacked you? Doesn't sound very nice does it? One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

  • I am ignoring tubebooboob from here on out; I'm sure he will have plenty more inane, off topic responses, but I'm bored with him now.

  • @gdhdlvr Pay attention people, gdhdlvr is a true charlatan. Clearly dishonest and deceptive, as you can see he is trying so hard to be cool. Unfortunately for him it still isn't working because he is full of **it. I want no further contact with a dishonest guy such as gdhdlvr. That is all.

  • Deepak Chopra:

    "It’s time to rescue "intelligent design" from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward."

    "To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist. Einstein said as much, and a fascinating theory called the anthropic principle has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking, among others."

  • @tubebooboob again showing your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Stephen Hawking just recently clearly stated that NO GOD is needed to explain the universe.

  • @gdhdlvr You idiot, that is a quote from Wikiquote/Deepak Chopra. You are so dishonest that you can't even distinguish what I said from someone I was very obviously quoting. So, you are the dishonest one, you scumbag.

  • Making up a new religion with updated facts from science does not make your religion true. If anything it demonstrates that religion is an evolution of ideas made up from the human mind.

  • I hope people realize Deepak is trying to create a new religion to profit from. None of his arguments has anything to do with the existing religious texts. The fact that he uses the word "God" is to appeal to the already religious people out there. What he is trying to preach could have any other name he choses, but it should not be confused with the "God" that everyone else has refered to throughout history.

  • Exactly!!!! People like Deepak should be destroyed

  • @outlaw87100 That is a disgraceful ignorance.

  • @outlaw87100 You sound like Hitler.

  • I know I would, and will, think about it, and listen to Deepak, he can tell you all about it. Thanks friends.

  • If survival of the fittest is true, and humanity is headed for the next evolutionary level, one which will see us come into a higher state of consciousness if not completely transcend beyond the form and reality we know or think we know now... wouldn't you like to be one of the people to tag along, rather than be left behind and die off with the rest of the apes posing as intelligent, rational, forward thinking human beings that rely on their "science" to teach them what they need to know?

  • And that next stage is an evolution not of the physical form as we've seen in the past(though as Deepak would tell you, physical is really non physical, matter non matter, stuff non stuff and so on), but rather it will be an evolution of consciousness, mind, spirit, soul, call it what you will. Paradoxically, all evolution is evolution of a non physical nature. I for one am more than ready for this, and I would love to see everyone else follow suit.

  • Ancient Hindu and Buddhist philosophers and guru's knew so much more about reality, the world, the universe and human potential than most others around the world could hope to ever know. Just look at the holographic universe for example, the ideas presented there are in no way new ones, they've been evident for a long time but it is only now that some of us are coming to realize it, but most of us are still ignorant. There's a movement towards a paradigm shift, the next stage in human evolution

  • Deepak comes from a long line of people who have put the spiritual, the transcendent, the metaphysical before science, especially the materialistic science that we in the western world have so foolishly come to accept as absolute truth. Only Deepak, like many others nowadays is different in that he supports a healthy mix of both worlds because he realizes that they don't contradict but rather compliment and support one another in ways that are truly leading the way to the greatest truth possible

  • @tubebooboob Good to see there's someone on here with more than half a mind, reading these comments fills me with both hope and despair for humanity, everyone calling deepak an idiot and saying he doesn't know what he's talking about or he's not a good philosopher, do you think you could possibly do any better? Open your mind people, let go of your prejudices and wake the fuck up. Ever think that maybe western/secular science doesn't have all the right answers?

  • @ussm19 Thank you. Indeed, the west is only part of a whole world. It would be a lack of integrity to leave out the east.

  • Science has also shown us that coffee and eggs are bad for us...I mean good for us...I mean bad for us...well...it depends on what month this is.