Deepak Chopra has so much more deep rooted wisdom than Richard Dawkins. Notice when they speak face to face Deepak's consciousness is seated at his third eye, the centerpiece of infinite wisdom, while Dawkins keeps blinking his eyes trying to find his center. Dawkins is just arrogant and stubborn, you can learn a lot more meaningful things from Deepak even if you don't agree with everything he says.
Its stupid how atheists are always comparing the tooth fairy with God. The tooth fairy can easily be disproven. While god cant be proven or disproven.
@pointzeroblack Haha you're so stupid. Although you are correct that atheists can only prove that it is extremely unlikely that God exists and not in fact impossible, your claim that the tooth fairy can be easily dis-proven, and is therefore so different to God, is false. You can provide me with evidence that will make the existence of the tooth fairy very unlikely but never completely prove that its existence is impossible. As you can see it is a fitting analogy.
@MikeyIsWellBad Well its a pretty dumb analogy.Like come on the tooth fairy? Plus its like your slurring the meaning of disprove to fit the analogy? Disprove is to prove to be false. If you disprove someone of something there are false, not very unlikely true. Since when does unlikely come about in disprove?
@pointzeroblack Prove that the toothfairy doesn't exist then!"Come on, the toothfairy", you say, just like we say "come on, god?" , but to "disprove" any claim about a "supernatural",immeasureable being is equally impossible.
@pointzeroblack Just like you are an idiot for not finding out that bronze-age ignorants' fantasies about invisible men in the sky are just primitive fantasies.
@winterstellar Hey heres a guide to prove or disprove the tooth fairy's existence, since you cant figure it out.First get someone to punch you hard enough right in the mouth so that one of your teeth fall out. When you go to bed put the tooth under your pillow. When you wake up check under your pillow for money. If there is, then the tooth fairy really must exist. If there isn't well then you just disproved the tooth fairy's existence.
@escapeartist80 Actually you can figure it out yourself. First get someone to punch you hard enough right in the mouth so that one of your teeth fall out. When you go to bed put the tooth under your pillow. When you wake up check under your pillow for money. If there is, then the tooth fairy really must exist. If there isn't well then you just disproved the tooth fairy's existence.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
How is this "...a good response to Dawkins' ridicule of Deepak's Quantum understanding"? He says nothing of his understanding of the quantum world. He just gives an opinion of Dawkins, clearly a negative one.
@SmokiSounds I seriously doubt that Dpk knows anything then enough to make his bullshit sound plausible to those who know even less than he does about it. I doubt he understands the core of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, why the thought experiment of Schrodinger's Cat is important Nor the difference between strings & loops & why "string" is a misnomer for M theory. I'd wager if he & I squared off on a quiz about quantum physics I'd probably kick his ass by orders of magnitude.
@SmokiSounds "No, Faith is completely logical. I invite you to show how it isn't."
Because what you have faith in is often more likely to be wrong than right.
Do you have "faith" that the sun orbits the Earth, as previous believers in your god used to?.......Or that the Earth is flat, as the writers of the bible believed? Or that slavery and genocide is morally acceptable?
Maybe you believe that it is logical to have faith in the ancient Sematic, Roman, Greek or Viking Gods?
@Tobytrim Earth revolving around Sun has absolutely nothing to do with Faith in a Creator. Don't think it's some kind of a disrediting argument. You people are amusing, thinking that Faith in God somehow correlates with the lack of knowledge of natural processes.
Ahh, sure, genocide and slavery. Old Testament. Modern Christianity follows Jesus and New Testament. "You've heard: love your close ones and hate your enemy; well I say to you: love your enemy and pray for those who curse you".
@SmokiSounds "Earth revolving around Sun has absolutely nothing to do with Faith in a Creator."
You said "faith is logical" and invited someone to prove otherwise. I pointed out that it was illogical because something you have faith in is likely to be wrong. The fact that it was once a matter of Christian faith to assume the sun orbited the Earth, and faith in the Christ is contingent on acceptance of ALL the bible, is a clear demonstration of the point you challenged me to prove.
@SmokiSounds If you say you don`t follow the old testament, then please tear it out of your bible. I highly doubt you would do that, but if you did, good on you! If you don`t you are a hypocrite.
@SmokiSounds Additionally, why is it that the bible says that god is the same yesterday today and forever and also that his word is the same. Why do the old testament and the new testament conflict then? Why is it commanded to stone an adulteress in the old testament, but Jesus then condemns the practice?
@Talendiem The don't conflict. Old Testament is a set of specific rules given to specific people in a specific timeframe, for a specific reason. 10 Commandments never change, indeed, because they're commadnments. Anything else in OT is directed to specific people. You're just another pretender who hasn't bothered studying the subject.
@SmokiSounds why is it logical to believe in an invisible man in the sky. god is no more than the imaginary friend of someone from few thousand years ago. also the more science learn the more god and faith isnt needed to explain things...
@xierotron Kid, if your understanding of God is "invisible man in the sky", there's no conversation. You'd be laughed at and pointed at the door in any serious debate. Grow up a little, maybe you'll get serious one day.
@SmokiSounds Do not call me a kid and God is no more than an invisible man in the sky that was made up, I hate to tell you this but there are no mysterious forces in the world no karma, no guardian angels. sure we all get a funny feeling for nature but everything can be explained and everything that science can't explain probably has a perfectly logical explaination it's just we are unable to work it out. Also dont talk down like your smarter than me coz ur probably not.
@SmokiSounds "God is above and beyond logic. He created it"
No he didn't!! - Whether he existed or not, he would have to conform to the laws of logic in order to be even concieved .
It is utterly stupid to claim anything transcends logic. Logic is the apparatus by which we understand what could exist in reality.Anything which could escape the laws of logic, by definition, would not exist!
For example- Why couldn't "god" make something too heavy for himself to lift? - Or could he?
@Tobytrim The "too heavy" question is a contradiction of terms. A rock'd have to be a certain size, to start with, otherwise it's not a rock. God is infinite, therefore a rock larger than infinity is a logical contradiction. Same as he can't make 2+2=5. He can create anything - but an infinite rock and some numbers are not things, they're abstract concepts.
What's "utterly stupid" is to claim God escapes the laws of logic.
@"The "too heavy" question is a contradiction of terms"
Of course it is !! That's exactly the point I'm using to demonstrate that god MUST conform to the laws of logic and therefore cannot be the author of them!! If "God" did not conform to the laws of logic, he himself would be a conceptual contradiction and could not exist!
If God, omnipotent by definition, could not do something , he is not god, unless he conforms to logic and therefore cannot transcend a logical contradiction!
@SmokiSounds "The "too heavy" question is a contradiction of terms"
If "God" was able to transcend logic, or not need not conform to it (being it's "inventer" ) then the "too heavy question" would not be a "contradiction of terms" to him - He could simply change the rules you would be able to see , and explain, how he could do it.
In other words, according to your logic, "God" is NOT omnipotent (Ergo not God) or he MUST conform to abstract, philosophical logic.
@SmokiSounds"a rock larger than infinity is a logical contradiction. Same as he can't make 2+2=5"
Ha ha!!! - Do you even pay attention to yourself??
Apart from the non sequitor reasoning in your arguments, do you realise how obviously and blatently you have contradicted your original premise which I'd taken issue with?? : "God is above and beyond logic. He created it"
Dawkins like the rest of the Authors who once get on a certain bandwagon won't publicly acknowledge there limited views even though the realize their folly. How can they lose all those precious dollars that are yet to be made? Everything has its place. I have read Dawkins books and Deepaks books as well. I am not a fan or either authors. But I can completely understand where Deepak comes from and I completely agree with him that there is more than just matter.
It is not arrogance to believe that I must have evidence to back up my claims. Once Deepak's attacks on science render ONE thing as useful and novel as our "quaint" mechanistic worldview does daily–you know, like a vaccine or a combustion engine–then I will admit that I am being arrogant by dismissing a person who offers no evidence for their claims.
Science is so minuscule, and but a fragment of the spiritual realm. People who rely too much on science are lesser evolved beings. Richard Dawkins is one such person. Common sense and careful observation will humble your mind and reliance on paper formulas to figure out the magnificence of consciousness.
I understand what he says because I have experienced a shift in consciousness in India. Deepak Chopra is one of the most important people in the world today for getting people to move to another consciousness level. He bridges spirituality with orthodox religion. You will all see what he says is going to be common truth
I would trust Dawkins more then Chopra, to tell me a zombie apocalypse is going to occur. Because Dawkins would be genuine, Chopra would tell me just to sell more books to me.
Today's atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@squamish4244 I'm not interested in hearing penrose, the 2nd law of thermodynamics thing has been done to death. I am interested in hearing your argument for schrodinger however.
And why not one more time: "We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"
So if we are literally manifesting the universe into existence, then we are also manifesting ourselves into existence, including the brain.
And again! "[The black hole] teaches us that space can be crumpled like a piece of paper into an infinitesimal dot, that time can be extinguished like a blown-out flame, and that the laws of physics that we regard as 'sacred,' as immutable, are anything but."
"You can talk about people like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, but the thing that convinced me that such people existed were the conversations with Bohr."
@squamish4244 That wheeler thinks that those people may have existed, does not prescribe the mystical and supernatural powers and status associated with them. Even muslims believe that jesus was a rabbi or philosopher. This proves nothing other than wheeler had an opinion on something.
I can bullshit and make up excrement like Deepak all day long,
but he can't do the hardcore mathematical and logistical modelling that *I* can do. He'll never get it, because he's subhuman and hence mentally inferior to humans. The defining property of a human being is one who can do mathematical modelling.
Chopra: your ideas are worthless, moronic, inconsistent, don't require any hard work or thought, ignorant of facts, obsolete, hypocritical, and useless.
I am proud to have mechanistic reductionistic abstract way of thinking and it is the wave of the future.
I think everyone is biased and that because he can make people understand doesnt make him a gimmick. He does have a degree and some religious perspective. I think he may seem extreme but he also explores areas that science or religion do not focus on...cant rule everything out...i am spiritual and feel you can learn from anyone...
@hokurakensei Being spiritual is one thing and no one can really dispute that, but once you claim that the spiritual things you believe in have influenced substantial events and people on the planet, you open it up to being subject to forensic analysis, criticism, and review. The more claims you make in this regard, the more you have the burden of proof to substantiate.
lol wow... that's the response? He just doesn't get it....
Unicorns are real man, you just have to get past the invisible film in your eye that stops them from being seen. I teach people how to get past this and see the unicorns all the time.
What do you mean you can't find that film when you disect an eye. You must have destroyed it when you cut into it to look. Just because you are a medical doctor and have all sorts of archaic teachings, you just don't get it man.
@ThePitofSidLord NONO MY DOUBLE DIGIR IQ FRIEND. RICHARD IS A DOG .R.DWAG THE NEW WORLD ORDER AGENT WHO AIMS TO KILL RELIGION WITH THE BULLSHIT CONCEPT "I CARE ONLY ABOUT THE TRUTH" AHAHAH ARE YOU RALLY SO STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT SOME ONE CARES "ONLY ABOUT THE TRUTH" AHAHAH MY DOUBLE DIGIT FRIEND I YOU LIKE TO HATE .HATE BUT NO NEED TO PUT LOW BRAIN WORD COMMENTS THERE ARE EBUFF IDIOTS AND HALF BAKED INTELECUALS IN OUR EVERY DAY LIFE .WHY DO U THINK WE CARE THAT YOU ARE FANATIC FUNDAMENTALIST???
@PabloDPena No, I consider a view of the world based in fact, cemented in factual presentation, recorded research and scientific scrutiny. Also known as reality. That's what I call educated.
As opposed to fairy tale lala-land merry-go-fuck-yourself hockus-pockus sky-wizard religious/spiritualist bullshit. Deepak fits in here.
Oh, and as a side note, science is only dismissive to things that aren't true, especially when they don't have the evidence to hold up/back them up to scrutiny.
@PabloDPena No, with phrases like "view of the world based in fact, cemented in factual presentation, recorded research and scientific scrutiny" how could I be wrong?
But I guess you just glassed over that to find a word that has nothing to do with the credibility of my argument to dismiss said argument. Quaint.
@iExperiencedit "Quantum science"? Do you mean the science of Quantum physics? If not, then I freely admit that I don't know what you're talking about. People were having mystical, magical, "spiritual experiences" in the Dark Ages. Perhaps you would like to go back to those days before science improved your quality of life? You will still know as much as this charlatan espouses to know now. Five hundred years of science and enlightenment values are all that seperate us from abject ignorance.
@michor10 Yes, of course, in fact, I was once pretty much an atheist myself, until I realized that physics in it s current form cannot explain the fundamental tenets of existence and that views likes Dawkins' are indeed outmoded and outdated.
@squamish4244 You were never an atheist. You were more likely an agnostic theist at best.
That you would futher invoke the god of the gaps, ie your gap in knowledge so "must be god" is telling.
Furthermore, objective existence is irrelevant if the observer is unknowing of it's presence. In other words, god may exist outside our perception of reality, but then again, so may the teapot or spaghetti monster. All have the same validity, and all have the same irrelevance.
@AlphaDogmatist Ok, so you know more about my life twenty years ago than I do. Huh. And I am not a theist, and I do not invoke the 'God of the gaps.' I am merely stating that basic tenets of the atheist worldview - no afterlife, mind = brain, consciousness is not an integral part of the universe but ends at death - are highly questionable, and theoretical physics is threatening to undermine them.
How many people go from toothfairy exists=false to toothfairy exists=true on premise of objective reality.
You said physics cannot explain "the fundamental tenets of existence" therefore you insert god. This is very much god of the gaps, and also argument from ignorance. Because you could not possibly think of any other way, it must be god.
I submit it's the flying spaghetti monster, both your posit and mine have the same level of validity at this point.
@AlphaDogmatist My premise is that there is no objective reality 'out there' existing independently of our perception of it. Therefore, it follows that consciousness is fundamental to the structure of the universe and does not arise in dependence upon brain function. This is a position that Dawkins unreservedly rejects and Chopra, whatever his flaws, does not. Among others, very highly regarded physicists such as John Wheeler, Erwin Schrodinger, and Roger Penrose maintain this position.
@squamish4244 Ok, Let's start with Penrose, 2nd law of thermodynamics? Cliche by now. Wheeler makes no such assertion, he is a theoretical physicist and if you are talking relativity, you don't have a good handle on it.
Schrödinger's cat applied to religion? I would love to hear your rationale for that. PS: Anyone that is familiar with the terms of quantum mechanics knows the old axiom: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you do not understand quantum mechanics."
@squamish4244 :"My premise is that there is no objective reality 'out there' existing independently of our perception of it. Therefore, it follows that consciousness is fundamental to the structure of the universe and does not arise in dependence upon brain function."
That is not a logical connection. Reality is subjective, therefore it follows.... No, no it does not follow.
Apparently I do not understand your definition of consciousness. Care to define it?
"The universe does not exist 'out there,' independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
@isometric85 Yanno, I really hate people that don't believe in the tooth fairy, they're just so damn annoyingly arrogant when you insist the tooth fairy is real, they are just being unreasonable.
@AlphaDogmatist I am a hard-core rationalist but I understand that according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which is accepted by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins), there are an infinite number of possible universes that must co-exist alongside ours. Therefore it is quite possible that in one of these universes exists something akin to fairies or demons or whatever as we understand them.
@osiris7nz You are right. Any number of possibilities exist, however, until you can sense them, as Sam Harris put it, they simply don't matter. Debating the possible existence of X on dimension y is an exercise in futility.
-
Where the fallacy exists is when one tries to invoke these universes as being able to merge, and maybe they do, but when they do, they fall under any other testable criteria that we can examine just like anything else.
this deepak fella is cheerleading the occupiers on wall street right now.. thats rich of him... according to many including dawkins he commands about 75,000 dollars per speech
I don't know about Deepak, but Richard Dawkins has not written any peer-reviewed papers on a scientific topic in over 20 years. He's not even a scientist anymore, and avoids Evolutionary Biology meetings. He travels around the world to attack religion and promote a new religion "Atheism", "Darwinism", whatever. Then he claims he knows what he's talking about, and that everyone should shut up otherwise. He's a crackpot of the highest order, a loony toon of science.
@logicCplusplus - Of course he is still a scientist, who thinks scientifically. He avoids evolution meetings with creationist crackpots who have a pseudoscience based upon their belief system instituted by primitive superstitious people millenia ago. Deepak Chopra is a prime example of swindling bullshit that comes from the top of a superstitious mind.
What peer-reviewed paper has Dawkins published in the last 20 years? He hasn't even kept up to date with Evolutionary Biology, his own native discipline. Richard Dawkins, along with fundie Atheists like to think they are incredibly scientific, that maybe, but they are terrible at logic and math, the prerequisites for science and reason.
@logicCplusplus - Do you think that because you don't publish papers you can't be a scientist. Do you even know how science works? Applying the scientific method in your everyday life makes you a scientist, not writing papers. You think I'm terrible at logic and math, I think you are sorely mistaken. I have worked as a chemical technician, electronics technician and industrial electrician. Either way If you are as logical as you say you are, explain where God came from, in all its complexity.
@logicCplusplus _ Dawkins is a leader in his field as anyone with access to an academic library knows. Look to Jstor.org for countless examples of his ideas being explored and debated, and for recent articles of his. - but of course your insinuation is that Deepak Chopra is up-to-date on anything in light of his 1000 year old mysticism?
Absolute garbage. Name a single published peer reviewed paper Dawkins has published in the last 10 years then you may have a point. Dawkins god of chance mysticism is worse than anything Deepak Chopra can cook up in a 1000 year window.
@logicCplusplus - "Dawkins god of chance mysticism" - have you ever heard the rubbish mysticism spouted by Chopra - he's a huckster and snake oil salesmen at best.
Richard Dawkins Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 349, No. 1328 (Aug. 29, 1995), pp. 219-224
George C. Williams Reviewed work(s): Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder by Richard Dawkins The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 328-329
Whenever an anti Dawkins or anti Darwin argument comes up, I am always glad I don't live under a rock, and it's now 2011, and for some reason, a shrinking part of the population can't see this.
If you don't believe in Evolution, ask yourself why you are born with an appendix, and Canine teeth.
@MrAntiFarLeft Why were you born with an appendix? Why were you born with canine teeth?
Why are all flat earthers afraid of questions?
1) Frogs come from tadpoles. That's not evolution but a birth process. You should have gone to school.
2) Yes, Humans are very closely related to chimps, a long way back.
3) Only people over 80 years old, and those who love slavery use the term "N*g***s". If you mean Africans, then yes, we are all derived from Africans, and only a few thousand years back.
"flat earthers". This is just a lose-lose situation for Atheists, to make arrogant and snarky responses. At one point in time, science would also have came to the conclusion the earth was flat, because the given evidence suggested such.
I've found one thing to be the common denominator in these sort of scenarios. In the end, which one of the two: Deepak Chopra or Richard Dawkins - would be willing to continue his work free of charge. I think that simple fact would obviously show who is more genuine in their approach.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
A very special fraud. A fraud that makes money by using the language to create an art of complete misunderstanding.
You spew the scientifically sounding words with the speed just about as adequate as to not understand the meaning of them, in the sentence. Faster, faster, more smudgy..
You create such situation, that - if anyone is lost in your words - it's his fault. Someone is simply to stupid to know the real meaning of your tirade.
Well, where do you get your knowledge of the 'unknown' and superconscious Mr. Chopra? Dawkins at least have a belief set that is formed through observable, material science which can be seen and accepted by most reasonable human beings. Where is the universality of your work? Or your knowledge?
This man represents a vile mixture of superstition and irrationality from several traditions. It is frightening to see people who had once been captivated by the rigid dogma of monotheism turn to a vague worship of the unknown. Human awe and the creative mind can be applied in useful manners such as science, introspection, and poetry without leaps of faith or magic. If we seek a beautiful and brave existence, why not accept our mortality as a real philosopher?
If you have to call everyone else blind, ignorant, or a liar in order to retain beliefs, at some point your may want to consider that it might be you who are blind, ignorant or lying.
It must be fascinating to talk with Deepak Chopra! He's wise enough to realize he doesn't know it all. Maybe that's how he's been able to know so much.
@eastariel When you have facts and evidence, you don't need to believe. And when there is something that can't be explained by science YET, you don't go around and make stuff up.
@baldurus1 Evidence is more than what we can see with our five senses. Science sees far, but it can't explain everything.
Religion has been with people the whole journey. It's a language of expression, a reach into the unknown, an attitude of humility in the face of unfathomable mysteries.
It's part of who we are as a species. Some people don't choose a religion as this form of expression; they choose art, music, science, anything that connects them to the cosmos, to the great beyond.
@eastariel No, you don't chose your religion. It's forced upon you as a child.
If you're born in India you will believe in Shiva and Ganesh, if you're born in Pakistan you will believe in Allah.
And to date no religion has given any answers, whats special about one religion compared to the other 10 million? When everyone claims their religion is the only correct one?
So the only logical thing to do is to suspend belief until belief is justified, and regarding religion(any religion) it's not.
SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE DEEPAK!!!!!!!
IAGOLLOYD 2 days ago
Deepak Chopra has so much more deep rooted wisdom than Richard Dawkins. Notice when they speak face to face Deepak's consciousness is seated at his third eye, the centerpiece of infinite wisdom, while Dawkins keeps blinking his eyes trying to find his center. Dawkins is just arrogant and stubborn, you can learn a lot more meaningful things from Deepak even if you don't agree with everything he says.
claytonhosmann 6 days ago
@claytonhosmann
Cool story bro.
jpwh007 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Deepak Chopra is a charlatan. His books are shite.
karezza6 1 week ago
What... Richard already responded face-to-face with this coward and Deepak could only fumble in his jargon like a child.
theafi99000 1 week ago 3
I think Dawkins would take being called Newtonian and mechanistic as a compliment ...as apposed to buying into Chopra's 'woo woo'.
hawkinscraig05 2 weeks ago
@hawkinscraig05 Ironic since Dawkins criticizes him for misusing quantum theory.
sinmantyx 15 hours ago
Newtonian?! Richard Dawkins has talked about quantum mechanics on numerous occasions.
TheSittingArchitect 2 weeks ago
Its stupid how atheists are always comparing the tooth fairy with God. The tooth fairy can easily be disproven. While god cant be proven or disproven.
pointzeroblack 3 weeks ago
@pointzeroblack Haha you're so stupid. Although you are correct that atheists can only prove that it is extremely unlikely that God exists and not in fact impossible, your claim that the tooth fairy can be easily dis-proven, and is therefore so different to God, is false. You can provide me with evidence that will make the existence of the tooth fairy very unlikely but never completely prove that its existence is impossible. As you can see it is a fitting analogy.
MikeyIsWellBad 3 weeks ago
@MikeyIsWellBad Well its a pretty dumb analogy.Like come on the tooth fairy? Plus its like your slurring the meaning of disprove to fit the analogy? Disprove is to prove to be false. If you disprove someone of something there are false, not very unlikely true. Since when does unlikely come about in disprove?
pointzeroblack 3 weeks ago
@pointzeroblack Prove that the toothfairy doesn't exist then!"Come on, the toothfairy", you say, just like we say "come on, god?" , but to "disprove" any claim about a "supernatural",immeasureable being is equally impossible.
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar If you cant figure out that the tooth fairy doesn't exist your an idiot.
pointzeroblack 3 weeks ago
@pointzeroblack Just like you are an idiot for not finding out that bronze-age ignorants' fantasies about invisible men in the sky are just primitive fantasies.
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar Hey heres a guide to prove or disprove the tooth fairy's existence, since you cant figure it out.First get someone to punch you hard enough right in the mouth so that one of your teeth fall out. When you go to bed put the tooth under your pillow. When you wake up check under your pillow for money. If there is, then the tooth fairy really must exist. If there isn't well then you just disproved the tooth fairy's existence.
pointzeroblack 2 weeks ago
@pointzeroblack ha ha too funny
tigeremblem 2 weeks ago
@pointzeroblack please disprove the tooth fairy.
escapeartist80 2 weeks ago
@escapeartist80 Actually you can figure it out yourself. First get someone to punch you hard enough right in the mouth so that one of your teeth fall out. When you go to bed put the tooth under your pillow. When you wake up check under your pillow for money. If there is, then the tooth fairy really must exist. If there isn't well then you just disproved the tooth fairy's existence.
pointzeroblack 2 weeks ago
I agree with him
Ms90sforever 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 weeks ago
Fraud. Liar. Moron.
BarryDong 3 weeks ago
Never a more self-conscious fraud and manipulator.
smhussain62 4 weeks ago 2
Richard Dawkins, isn;t buying your shit?
boazmoss 1 month ago
How is this "...a good response to Dawkins' ridicule of Deepak's Quantum understanding"? He says nothing of his understanding of the quantum world. He just gives an opinion of Dawkins, clearly a negative one.
davidsfriend01 1 month ago
Who the fuck can be fooled by this con-man? Illiterate morons, maybe..
winterstellar 1 month ago
My Body is alive, it has feeling it´s not a machine... Dawkins is an arogant prick whith no sence of feeling...
thesunnyblack1 1 month ago
deepak is full of shit. he doesn't know squat about quantum physics
eahazell 1 month ago
hahhhahah, I'm sure he knows about it more than your trolling keyboard ass does.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds I seriously doubt that Dpk knows anything then enough to make his bullshit sound plausible to those who know even less than he does about it. I doubt he understands the core of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, why the thought experiment of Schrodinger's Cat is important Nor the difference between strings & loops & why "string" is a misnomer for M theory. I'd wager if he & I squared off on a quiz about quantum physics I'd probably kick his ass by orders of magnitude.
eahazell 1 month ago
didhe say a world view is Newtonian? Seriously?
Niemtol2 1 month ago
Deepak, some honest, sincere advice for you: If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
mattyisagod 1 month ago
ah, the age old debate rages...
getsomemates69 1 month ago
Thank you come again!
synclinalllun 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins is a fuddy duddy!!
Gold3nStat3KiD 2 months ago
@Gold3nStat3KiD How dare you... lol
JetDubRadio 1 month ago
Terrible response reinforced by an 8 to 1 dislike lightsaber.
tNJippoes 2 months ago
god is logic
paginipro 2 months ago
@paginipro no god is illogical, logic is logic
xierotron 1 month ago
@xierotron God is above and beyond logic. He created it. Faith is nothing but logical conclusion of deductive thinking.
Oops.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds no faith is illogical and false thus not a logical conclusion
xierotron 1 month ago
@xierotron No, Faith is completely logical. I invite you to show how it isn't.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds
faith: the belief in something without evidence.
A belief in something without evidence by definition is foolishness on the highest level.
Picasso43967 1 month ago
@Picasso43967 "faith: the belief in something without evidence"
Moreover, a belief in something without evidence, nor any reason to even concieve it, or that it might be possible, in the first place!
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds "No, Faith is completely logical. I invite you to show how it isn't."
Because what you have faith in is often more likely to be wrong than right.
Do you have "faith" that the sun orbits the Earth, as previous believers in your god used to?.......Or that the Earth is flat, as the writers of the bible believed? Or that slavery and genocide is morally acceptable?
Maybe you believe that it is logical to have faith in the ancient Sematic, Roman, Greek or Viking Gods?
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim Earth revolving around Sun has absolutely nothing to do with Faith in a Creator. Don't think it's some kind of a disrediting argument. You people are amusing, thinking that Faith in God somehow correlates with the lack of knowledge of natural processes.
Ahh, sure, genocide and slavery. Old Testament. Modern Christianity follows Jesus and New Testament. "You've heard: love your close ones and hate your enemy; well I say to you: love your enemy and pray for those who curse you".
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds "Earth revolving around Sun has absolutely nothing to do with Faith in a Creator."
You said "faith is logical" and invited someone to prove otherwise. I pointed out that it was illogical because something you have faith in is likely to be wrong. The fact that it was once a matter of Christian faith to assume the sun orbited the Earth, and faith in the Christ is contingent on acceptance of ALL the bible, is a clear demonstration of the point you challenged me to prove.
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds If you say you don`t follow the old testament, then please tear it out of your bible. I highly doubt you would do that, but if you did, good on you! If you don`t you are a hypocrite.
Talendiem 1 month ago
@Talendiem I don't have to tear anything out, because in the OT a lot of answers are found. Do you tear out pages of history books, idiot?
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds Additionally, why is it that the bible says that god is the same yesterday today and forever and also that his word is the same. Why do the old testament and the new testament conflict then? Why is it commanded to stone an adulteress in the old testament, but Jesus then condemns the practice?
Talendiem 1 month ago
@Talendiem The don't conflict. Old Testament is a set of specific rules given to specific people in a specific timeframe, for a specific reason. 10 Commandments never change, indeed, because they're commadnments. Anything else in OT is directed to specific people. You're just another pretender who hasn't bothered studying the subject.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds why is it logical to believe in an invisible man in the sky. god is no more than the imaginary friend of someone from few thousand years ago. also the more science learn the more god and faith isnt needed to explain things...
xierotron 1 month ago
@xierotron Kid, if your understanding of God is "invisible man in the sky", there's no conversation. You'd be laughed at and pointed at the door in any serious debate. Grow up a little, maybe you'll get serious one day.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds Do not call me a kid and God is no more than an invisible man in the sky that was made up, I hate to tell you this but there are no mysterious forces in the world no karma, no guardian angels. sure we all get a funny feeling for nature but everything can be explained and everything that science can't explain probably has a perfectly logical explaination it's just we are unable to work it out. Also dont talk down like your smarter than me coz ur probably not.
xierotron 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds "God is above and beyond logic. He created it"
No he didn't!! - Whether he existed or not, he would have to conform to the laws of logic in order to be even concieved .
It is utterly stupid to claim anything transcends logic. Logic is the apparatus by which we understand what could exist in reality.Anything which could escape the laws of logic, by definition, would not exist!
For example- Why couldn't "god" make something too heavy for himself to lift? - Or could he?
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim The "too heavy" question is a contradiction of terms. A rock'd have to be a certain size, to start with, otherwise it's not a rock. God is infinite, therefore a rock larger than infinity is a logical contradiction. Same as he can't make 2+2=5. He can create anything - but an infinite rock and some numbers are not things, they're abstract concepts.
What's "utterly stupid" is to claim God escapes the laws of logic.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@"The "too heavy" question is a contradiction of terms"
Of course it is !! That's exactly the point I'm using to demonstrate that god MUST conform to the laws of logic and therefore cannot be the author of them!! If "God" did not conform to the laws of logic, he himself would be a conceptual contradiction and could not exist!
If God, omnipotent by definition, could not do something , he is not god, unless he conforms to logic and therefore cannot transcend a logical contradiction!
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds "The "too heavy" question is a contradiction of terms"
If "God" was able to transcend logic, or not need not conform to it (being it's "inventer" ) then the "too heavy question" would not be a "contradiction of terms" to him - He could simply change the rules you would be able to see , and explain, how he could do it.
In other words, according to your logic, "God" is NOT omnipotent (Ergo not God) or he MUST conform to abstract, philosophical logic.
Tobytrim 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmokiSounds"a rock larger than infinity is a logical contradiction. Same as he can't make 2+2=5"
Ha ha!!! - Do you even pay attention to yourself??
Apart from the non sequitor reasoning in your arguments, do you realise how obviously and blatently you have contradicted your original premise which I'd taken issue with?? : "God is above and beyond logic. He created it"
You have made my point for me!! Lol!!
Tobytrim 1 month ago
Dawkins like the rest of the Authors who once get on a certain bandwagon won't publicly acknowledge there limited views even though the realize their folly. How can they lose all those precious dollars that are yet to be made? Everything has its place. I have read Dawkins books and Deepaks books as well. I am not a fan or either authors. But I can completely understand where Deepak comes from and I completely agree with him that there is more than just matter.
utubex03 2 months ago
It is not arrogance to believe that I must have evidence to back up my claims. Once Deepak's attacks on science render ONE thing as useful and novel as our "quaint" mechanistic worldview does daily–you know, like a vaccine or a combustion engine–then I will admit that I am being arrogant by dismissing a person who offers no evidence for their claims.
quaternio 2 months ago
Science is so minuscule, and but a fragment of the spiritual realm. People who rely too much on science are lesser evolved beings. Richard Dawkins is one such person. Common sense and careful observation will humble your mind and reliance on paper formulas to figure out the magnificence of consciousness.
hazzpolo 2 months ago
@hazzpolo too bad your consciousness is just electromagnetic impulses.
Lmaox94 2 months ago
Deepak has mastered the art of uttering a lot of words without really saying anything.
MatsEP 2 months ago
@MatsEP And you have mastered the art of dismissing anything you don't agree with as babble.
PabloDPena 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I understand what he says because I have experienced a shift in consciousness in India. Deepak Chopra is one of the most important people in the world today for getting people to move to another consciousness level. He bridges spirituality with orthodox religion. You will all see what he says is going to be common truth
angelicvoice2012 2 months ago
Youtube Responds to Deepak Chopra, "ur a no0b"
Typho0n86 2 months ago
Never get what exactly Deepak?
Can you explain anything Deepak?
Or are we just supposed to feel you are correct?
paintballingguy 2 months ago
Deepak you fraud.
CssAfc 2 months ago 2
@CssAfc
He even has a videogame. Loola, I believe, is its name. As to be expected, it's Wii game.
rpaslux 1 month ago
Dawkins is an evil man anyway.
ProtestantsRUs 2 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs
...Because...???
grozde 2 months ago
@grozde His name is 'ProtestantsRUs'... That's why, lol.
CssAfc 2 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs Fuck you
CssAfc 1 month ago
I would trust Dawkins more then Chopra, to tell me a zombie apocalypse is going to occur. Because Dawkins would be genuine, Chopra would tell me just to sell more books to me.
cisdac 2 months ago 2
@cisdac How is Dawkins genuine, both sell books.
UltraEpicLoser 2 months ago
Deepak you are the ultimate cliche of what a fake guru is....
cineasta71 2 months ago 2
Funny how no physicist alive agrees with Deepak's view of quantum woo...
danoso0931 2 months ago
Deepak is right.
Galileo1864 2 months ago
The irony being that Deepak Chopra needs to stick to Newtonian physics...
lopeyschools 2 months ago
He graduated from medical school but realized that he could make more money by being a lying charlatan.
HentaiFundamentalist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Today's atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
CelestialEmbodiment 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
I will provide quotations from Schrodinger and Penrose upon request.
squamish4244 3 months ago
@squamish4244 I'm not interested in hearing penrose, the 2nd law of thermodynamics thing has been done to death. I am interested in hearing your argument for schrodinger however.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
And why not one more time: "We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"
So if we are literally manifesting the universe into existence, then we are also manifesting ourselves into existence, including the brain.
squamish4244 3 months ago
And again! "[The black hole] teaches us that space can be crumpled like a piece of paper into an infinitesimal dot, that time can be extinguished like a blown-out flame, and that the laws of physics that we regard as 'sacred,' as immutable, are anything but."
squamish4244 3 months ago
@squamish4244 God of the gaps. Laws of physics are not immutable, therefore you insert god. Fallacious.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
John Wheeler again:
"You can talk about people like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, but the thing that convinced me that such people existed were the conversations with Bohr."
squamish4244 3 months ago
@squamish4244 That wheeler thinks that those people may have existed, does not prescribe the mystical and supernatural powers and status associated with them. Even muslims believe that jesus was a rabbi or philosopher. This proves nothing other than wheeler had an opinion on something.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
Deepshit Crapra:
"You're not open-minded enough to appreciate all the wisdom my lunacy and misuse and abuse of the meanings of words has to offer."
mphello 3 months ago 6
I can bullshit and make up excrement like Deepak all day long,
but he can't do the hardcore mathematical and logistical modelling that *I* can do. He'll never get it, because he's subhuman and hence mentally inferior to humans. The defining property of a human being is one who can do mathematical modelling.
mphello 3 months ago
Chopra: your ideas are worthless, moronic, inconsistent, don't require any hard work or thought, ignorant of facts, obsolete, hypocritical, and useless.
I am proud to have mechanistic reductionistic abstract way of thinking and it is the wave of the future.
mphello 3 months ago
This man is as batshit crazy as can be.
theanvilcracks 3 months ago
I think everyone is biased and that because he can make people understand doesnt make him a gimmick. He does have a degree and some religious perspective. I think he may seem extreme but he also explores areas that science or religion do not focus on...cant rule everything out...i am spiritual and feel you can learn from anyone...
hokurakensei 3 months ago
@hokurakensei Being spiritual is one thing and no one can really dispute that, but once you claim that the spiritual things you believe in have influenced substantial events and people on the planet, you open it up to being subject to forensic analysis, criticism, and review. The more claims you make in this regard, the more you have the burden of proof to substantiate.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
As a psychologist I can tell you that Deepak Chopra is out of his goddamned mind.
ajnode 3 months ago
This man is very good at spewing utter rubbish!
duzyureks 3 months ago
Translation: I, Deepak, like to just throw words around without any regard for what they mean.
backwoodsninja 3 months ago
Deepak, go get an honest, decent job, man...
fmargentina 3 months ago 2
lol wow... that's the response? He just doesn't get it....
Unicorns are real man, you just have to get past the invisible film in your eye that stops them from being seen. I teach people how to get past this and see the unicorns all the time.
What do you mean you can't find that film when you disect an eye. You must have destroyed it when you cut into it to look. Just because you are a medical doctor and have all sorts of archaic teachings, you just don't get it man.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago 2
@AlphaDogmatist You sir get a cookie. I want to see unicorns too...
BuddhaBebop 3 months ago
Right, being educated is an obsolete worldview.
I guess that makes it easier for you to throw around scientific words and get people to believe you're legit, doesn't it Deepak?
ThePitofSidLord 3 months ago 50
@ThePitofSidLord
Keep up the awesome p'ownage of lunatics like Deepshit Crapra!
mphello 3 months ago
@ThePitofSidLord NONO MY DOUBLE DIGIR IQ FRIEND. RICHARD IS A DOG .R.DWAG THE NEW WORLD ORDER AGENT WHO AIMS TO KILL RELIGION WITH THE BULLSHIT CONCEPT "I CARE ONLY ABOUT THE TRUTH" AHAHAH ARE YOU RALLY SO STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT SOME ONE CARES "ONLY ABOUT THE TRUTH" AHAHAH MY DOUBLE DIGIT FRIEND I YOU LIKE TO HATE .HATE BUT NO NEED TO PUT LOW BRAIN WORD COMMENTS THERE ARE EBUFF IDIOTS AND HALF BAKED INTELECUALS IN OUR EVERY DAY LIFE .WHY DO U THINK WE CARE THAT YOU ARE FANATIC FUNDAMENTALIST???
mastakur 2 months ago
@mastakur ...not sure if trolling... or just stupid...
ThePitofSidLord 2 months ago
@ThePitofSidLord Educated?? You consider a cemented view of reality based on rigid concepts and arrogantly dismissive of anything else as EDUCATED?
PabloDPena 2 months ago
@PabloDPena No, I consider a view of the world based in fact, cemented in factual presentation, recorded research and scientific scrutiny. Also known as reality. That's what I call educated.
As opposed to fairy tale lala-land merry-go-fuck-yourself hockus-pockus sky-wizard religious/spiritualist bullshit. Deepak fits in here.
Oh, and as a side note, science is only dismissive to things that aren't true, especially when they don't have the evidence to hold up/back them up to scrutiny.
:3
ThePitofSidLord 2 months ago
@ThePitofSidLord Well with phrases like "merry-go-fuck-yourself..." how could you possibly be wrong?
PabloDPena 2 months ago
@PabloDPena No, with phrases like "view of the world based in fact, cemented in factual presentation, recorded research and scientific scrutiny" how could I be wrong?
But I guess you just glassed over that to find a word that has nothing to do with the credibility of my argument to dismiss said argument. Quaint.
ThePitofSidLord 2 months ago
Yes people like him just don't get it!
edwardsrubyg 3 months ago
i didn't understand a word he said but..... yay!!! go Deepak
Theboxer500 3 months ago
out moded? - ah the irony.
worktosser 3 months ago
What a dufus...
inapcha 3 months ago
@iExperiencedit "Quantum science"? Do you mean the science of Quantum physics? If not, then I freely admit that I don't know what you're talking about. People were having mystical, magical, "spiritual experiences" in the Dark Ages. Perhaps you would like to go back to those days before science improved your quality of life? You will still know as much as this charlatan espouses to know now. Five hundred years of science and enlightenment values are all that seperate us from abject ignorance.
ZachRose88 3 months ago
@iExperiencedit Don't scare the atheists on here, they have their worldview and they're sticking to it.
squamish4244 3 months ago 6
@squamish4244 Have you even considered it possible to unstick yourself from your own beliefs? Think.
michor10 3 months ago
@michor10 Yes, of course, in fact, I was once pretty much an atheist myself, until I realized that physics in it s current form cannot explain the fundamental tenets of existence and that views likes Dawkins' are indeed outmoded and outdated.
squamish4244 3 months ago
@squamish4244 You were never an atheist. You were more likely an agnostic theist at best.
That you would futher invoke the god of the gaps, ie your gap in knowledge so "must be god" is telling.
Furthermore, objective existence is irrelevant if the observer is unknowing of it's presence. In other words, god may exist outside our perception of reality, but then again, so may the teapot or spaghetti monster. All have the same validity, and all have the same irrelevance.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
@AlphaDogmatist Ok, so you know more about my life twenty years ago than I do. Huh. And I am not a theist, and I do not invoke the 'God of the gaps.' I am merely stating that basic tenets of the atheist worldview - no afterlife, mind = brain, consciousness is not an integral part of the universe but ends at death - are highly questionable, and theoretical physics is threatening to undermine them.
squamish4244 3 months ago
@squamish4244
-
How many people go from toothfairy exists=false to toothfairy exists=true on premise of objective reality.
You said physics cannot explain "the fundamental tenets of existence" therefore you insert god. This is very much god of the gaps, and also argument from ignorance. Because you could not possibly think of any other way, it must be god.
I submit it's the flying spaghetti monster, both your posit and mine have the same level of validity at this point.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
@AlphaDogmatist My premise is that there is no objective reality 'out there' existing independently of our perception of it. Therefore, it follows that consciousness is fundamental to the structure of the universe and does not arise in dependence upon brain function. This is a position that Dawkins unreservedly rejects and Chopra, whatever his flaws, does not. Among others, very highly regarded physicists such as John Wheeler, Erwin Schrodinger, and Roger Penrose maintain this position.
squamish4244 3 months ago
@squamish4244 Ok, Let's start with Penrose, 2nd law of thermodynamics? Cliche by now. Wheeler makes no such assertion, he is a theoretical physicist and if you are talking relativity, you don't have a good handle on it.
Schrödinger's cat applied to religion? I would love to hear your rationale for that. PS: Anyone that is familiar with the terms of quantum mechanics knows the old axiom: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you do not understand quantum mechanics."
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
@squamish4244 :"My premise is that there is no objective reality 'out there' existing independently of our perception of it. Therefore, it follows that consciousness is fundamental to the structure of the universe and does not arise in dependence upon brain function."
That is not a logical connection. Reality is subjective, therefore it follows.... No, no it does not follow.
Apparently I do not understand your definition of consciousness. Care to define it?
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago
@AlphaDogmatist John Wheeler:
"The universe does not exist 'out there,' independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
squamish4244 3 months ago
@squamish4244 i hate athest they are just as fanatical as the religious ones
isometric85 3 months ago
@isometric85 Yanno, I really hate people that don't believe in the tooth fairy, they're just so damn annoyingly arrogant when you insist the tooth fairy is real, they are just being unreasonable.
AlphaDogmatist 3 months ago 10
@AlphaDogmatist I am a hard-core rationalist but I understand that according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which is accepted by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins), there are an infinite number of possible universes that must co-exist alongside ours. Therefore it is quite possible that in one of these universes exists something akin to fairies or demons or whatever as we understand them.
osiris7nz 1 month ago
@osiris7nz You are right. Any number of possibilities exist, however, until you can sense them, as Sam Harris put it, they simply don't matter. Debating the possible existence of X on dimension y is an exercise in futility.
-
Where the fallacy exists is when one tries to invoke these universes as being able to merge, and maybe they do, but when they do, they fall under any other testable criteria that we can examine just like anything else.
AlphaDogmatist 1 month ago
So, what's his argument? Another stupid f**ing Indian who spouts mystical nonsense.
visigrog 3 months ago
@visigrog oh jeez...
pumitaproductions 3 months ago
this deepak fella is cheerleading the occupiers on wall street right now.. thats rich of him... according to many including dawkins he commands about 75,000 dollars per speech
flyscreen99 3 months ago
chopra is a fraud. His stuff is aimed at old boilers
ion507 3 months ago
We all get it, Deepak plays make-believe and gets paid very well by those he fools.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76
I don't know about Deepak, but Richard Dawkins has not written any peer-reviewed papers on a scientific topic in over 20 years. He's not even a scientist anymore, and avoids Evolutionary Biology meetings. He travels around the world to attack religion and promote a new religion "Atheism", "Darwinism", whatever. Then he claims he knows what he's talking about, and that everyone should shut up otherwise. He's a crackpot of the highest order, a loony toon of science.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus - Of course he is still a scientist, who thinks scientifically. He avoids evolution meetings with creationist crackpots who have a pseudoscience based upon their belief system instituted by primitive superstitious people millenia ago. Deepak Chopra is a prime example of swindling bullshit that comes from the top of a superstitious mind.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76
What peer-reviewed paper has Dawkins published in the last 20 years? He hasn't even kept up to date with Evolutionary Biology, his own native discipline. Richard Dawkins, along with fundie Atheists like to think they are incredibly scientific, that maybe, but they are terrible at logic and math, the prerequisites for science and reason.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus - Do you think that because you don't publish papers you can't be a scientist. Do you even know how science works? Applying the scientific method in your everyday life makes you a scientist, not writing papers. You think I'm terrible at logic and math, I think you are sorely mistaken. I have worked as a chemical technician, electronics technician and industrial electrician. Either way If you are as logical as you say you are, explain where God came from, in all its complexity.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus _ Dawkins is a leader in his field as anyone with access to an academic library knows. Look to Jstor.org for countless examples of his ideas being explored and debated, and for recent articles of his. - but of course your insinuation is that Deepak Chopra is up-to-date on anything in light of his 1000 year old mysticism?
ricko1111 3 months ago
@ricko1111
Absolute garbage. Name a single published peer reviewed paper Dawkins has published in the last 10 years then you may have a point. Dawkins god of chance mysticism is worse than anything Deepak Chopra can cook up in a 1000 year window.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@logicCplusplus - "Dawkins god of chance mysticism" - have you ever heard the rubbish mysticism spouted by Chopra - he's a huckster and snake oil salesmen at best.
Richard Dawkins Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 349, No. 1328 (Aug. 29, 1995), pp. 219-224
George C. Williams Reviewed work(s): Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder by Richard Dawkins The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 328-329
plus others
ricko1111 3 months ago
This guy faces a lot of criticism
MHR218 3 months ago
¿qué dice en español? Gracias.
piratobatrava 3 months ago
Whenever an anti Dawkins or anti Darwin argument comes up, I am always glad I don't live under a rock, and it's now 2011, and for some reason, a shrinking part of the population can't see this.
If you don't believe in Evolution, ask yourself why you are born with an appendix, and Canine teeth.
chavrecycling 3 months ago
@chavrecycling so what were your relatives ?...tadpoles , chimps....or negroes ?
MrAntiFarLeft 3 months ago
@MrAntiFarLeft Why were you born with an appendix? Why were you born with canine teeth?
Why are all flat earthers afraid of questions?
1) Frogs come from tadpoles. That's not evolution but a birth process. You should have gone to school.
2) Yes, Humans are very closely related to chimps, a long way back.
3) Only people over 80 years old, and those who love slavery use the term "N*g***s". If you mean Africans, then yes, we are all derived from Africans, and only a few thousand years back.
chavrecycling 3 months ago
@chavrecycling born with teeth?...since when are babies born with teeth?
i think its you that should have gone to school and not wasted your time on a bachelor of attendence.
Keep believing the guesswork if it helps you to sleep at night.
MrAntiFarLeft 3 months ago
@MrAntiFarLeft Do you deny that you have Canine teeth, and were born with an appendix?
Why are flat earthers afraid of questions?
chavrecycling 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chavrecycling Do you deny you are a complete buffoon ?
MrTerryWinter 3 months ago
@chavrecycling
"flat earthers". This is just a lose-lose situation for Atheists, to make arrogant and snarky responses. At one point in time, science would also have came to the conclusion the earth was flat, because the given evidence suggested such.
logicCplusplus 3 months ago
@logicCplusplus And at every step of the way, the church has fought tooth and nail because knowledge is their enemy.
chavrecycling 3 months ago
flagged for animal abuse
Scyle92 3 months ago
I've found one thing to be the common denominator in these sort of scenarios. In the end, which one of the two: Deepak Chopra or Richard Dawkins - would be willing to continue his work free of charge. I think that simple fact would obviously show who is more genuine in their approach.
Water4Jeremiah 4 months ago
@Water4Jeremiah
I'd wager on Chopra continuing his work for free over Dawkins any time. What's your point?
pimpinmia 4 months ago
@pimpinmia Exactly.
Water4Jeremiah 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
why cant some people be open minded .no body knows dawkins or chopra.energy never dies and i am energy hence .
mrricksta30 4 months ago
Deepak, you are a fraud...
A very special fraud. A fraud that makes money by using the language to create an art of complete misunderstanding.
You spew the scientifically sounding words with the speed just about as adequate as to not understand the meaning of them, in the sentence. Faster, faster, more smudgy..
You create such situation, that - if anyone is lost in your words - it's his fault. Someone is simply to stupid to know the real meaning of your tirade.
Fuuuuck you! Simply enough ?
MrJurekGG 4 months ago
Well, where do you get your knowledge of the 'unknown' and superconscious Mr. Chopra? Dawkins at least have a belief set that is formed through observable, material science which can be seen and accepted by most reasonable human beings. Where is the universality of your work? Or your knowledge?
SuperMemzzz 4 months ago
This man represents a vile mixture of superstition and irrationality from several traditions. It is frightening to see people who had once been captivated by the rigid dogma of monotheism turn to a vague worship of the unknown. Human awe and the creative mind can be applied in useful manners such as science, introspection, and poetry without leaps of faith or magic. If we seek a beautiful and brave existence, why not accept our mortality as a real philosopher?
thebookofange 4 months ago
If you have to call everyone else blind, ignorant, or a liar in order to retain beliefs, at some point your may want to consider that it might be you who are blind, ignorant or lying.
AndreisEntaro 4 months ago
utonian... hm ok, think i'll google that one
blankprobe 4 months ago
@blankprobe
Newtonian... genius.
pimpinmia 4 months ago
@pimpinmia hah hah hah :D
if you say so...
blankprobe 4 months ago
@pimpinmia thx btw
blankprobe 4 months ago
It must be fascinating to talk with Deepak Chopra! He's wise enough to realize he doesn't know it all. Maybe that's how he's been able to know so much.
eastariel 4 months ago
I wonder what Richard Dorkins calls his new religion that he believes in so strongly -- Dustianity?
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel When you have facts and evidence, you don't need to believe. And when there is something that can't be explained by science YET, you don't go around and make stuff up.
It's not a religion, it's common sense.
baldurus1 4 months ago
@baldurus1 Evidence is more than what we can see with our five senses. Science sees far, but it can't explain everything.
Religion has been with people the whole journey. It's a language of expression, a reach into the unknown, an attitude of humility in the face of unfathomable mysteries.
It's part of who we are as a species. Some people don't choose a religion as this form of expression; they choose art, music, science, anything that connects them to the cosmos, to the great beyond.
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel No, you don't chose your religion. It's forced upon you as a child.
If you're born in India you will believe in Shiva and Ganesh, if you're born in Pakistan you will believe in Allah.
And to date no religion has given any answers, whats special about one religion compared to the other 10 million? When everyone claims their religion is the only correct one?
So the only logical thing to do is to suspend belief until belief is justified, and regarding religion(any religion) it's not.
baldurus1 4 months ago
@baldurus1 Yes, we must "suspend belief until belief is justified."
As a child, I attended the Roman Catholic Church. Now, the only church I attend is the church of Christian music.
We share our traditions with our children, and hopefully they choose the best and leave the rest.
I hope you find many things out there that you love -- whether it's music, science, dancing, whatever.
The true nature of belief means not pasting doctrines on like a bandaid, but harmonizing with them in heart and mind.
eastariel 4 months ago
Why define a universe made of energy as if it's a mechanical object made of particles?
Reality is bigger than we realize. Deepak Chopra knows this. He's open minded, always learning.
eastariel 4 months ago
Deepockets Chopra at it again.
He studied under P.T, Barnum - bet u didn't know that.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
And, there are plenty of them here at YT.
azcentralsurprise 4 months ago