Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer

[RedskinRat]

Does God Have a Future? 12 part video debate

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

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Does God Have a Future? 12 part video debate

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

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

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

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

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

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?

[saden1]

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

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

Two videos that might be of interest...

Dawkins exposes Deepak for the fraud he is:



A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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

Two videos that might be of interest...

Dawkins exposes Deepak for the fraud he is:



A must see lecture by the brilliant Lawrence Krauss:

that chick at 1:58 of the first video had some pretty big tatas.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

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

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

Have I mentioned before that I despise hippies?

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

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

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

[Lotus]

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

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

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

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

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

-The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

Well done.

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

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

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

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

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

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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



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



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

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

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology. Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

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

It's one thing to study religion as a sociological construct, quite another to espouse belief. I'm as atheist as they come and I've taken quite a few religion courses... mainly as a means to understanding the craziness that comes out of people's mouths.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

It's one thing to study religion as a sociological construct, quite another to espouse belief. I'm as atheist as they come and I've taken quite a few religion courses... mainly as a means to understanding the craziness that comes out of people's mouths.

I thought you were an avid believer a while back...so much so that you wanted to quite the site. What happened?

[RedskinRat]

Appreciated saden1.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Does God Have a Future? 12 part video debate

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

That uses LSD.

Credibility thrown right out the window....