1
 
   
 

Debate - Shermer and Chopra

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
19 April 2008 13:37
 

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

I thought that this was pretty interesting. Chopra struggles to bend scientific jargon to support unsupported, extraordinary claims - the kind of claims that we know requires extraordinary evidence.

 
 
mpbrockman
 
Avatar
 
 
mpbrockman
Total Posts:  951
Joined  23-06-2007
 
 
 
19 April 2008 13:53
 
eucaryote - 19 April 2008 05:37 PM

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

I thought that this was pretty interesting. Chopra struggles to bend scientific jargon to support unsupported, extraordinary claims - the kind of claims that we know requires extraordinary evidence.

Yeeeeks! I think Deepak needs a hug.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
19 April 2008 14:18
 
mpbrockman - 19 April 2008 05:53 PM
eucaryote - 19 April 2008 05:37 PM

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

I thought that this was pretty interesting. Chopra struggles to bend scientific jargon to support unsupported, extraordinary claims - the kind of claims that we know requires extraordinary evidence.

Yeeeeks! I think Deepak needs a hug.

 

Deepak doesn’t need a huge. He is laughing all the way to the bank.

BTW: I love Michael Shermer.  I saw him on c-span.  He’s a keeper.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
19 April 2008 16:39
 
lindajean - 19 April 2008 06:18 PM
mpbrockman - 19 April 2008 05:53 PM
eucaryote - 19 April 2008 05:37 PM

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

I thought that this was pretty interesting. Chopra struggles to bend scientific jargon to support unsupported, extraordinary claims - the kind of claims that we know requires extraordinary evidence.

Yeeeeks! I think Deepak needs a hug.

 

Deepak doesn’t need a huge. He is laughing all the way to the bank.

BTW: I love Michael Shermer.  I saw him on c-span.  He’s a keeper.

Are you implying that Deepak is not sincere in his “scientific research”?

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
20 April 2008 05:40
 
eucaryote - 19 April 2008 08:39 PM
lindajean - 19 April 2008 06:18 PM
mpbrockman - 19 April 2008 05:53 PM
eucaryote - 19 April 2008 05:37 PM

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

I thought that this was pretty interesting. Chopra struggles to bend scientific jargon to support unsupported, extraordinary claims - the kind of claims that we know requires extraordinary evidence.

Yeeeeks! I think Deepak needs a hug.

 

Deepak doesn’t need a huge. He is laughing all the way to the bank.

BTW: I love Michael Shermer.  I saw him on c-span.  He’s a keeper.

Are you implying that Deepak is not sincere in his “scientific research”?

Do I really need to answer that?  I’ll stick with Shermer.  He’s my kind of guy.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
20 April 2008 12:38
 

Shermer IMHO is one of the best out there, but far less known then others (like Harris) even though he’s done far more. His books are excellent I highly recommend them.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Sven62
Total Posts:  74
Joined  08-10-2006
 
 
 
28 April 2008 18:14
 
GAD - 20 April 2008 04:38 PM

Shermer IMHO is one of the best out there, but far less known then others (like Harris) even though he’s done far more. His books are excellent I highly recommend them.

I like him, too.  I belong to his Skeptic Society.  I do not think he is as good a debator as Harris or Hitchens.  I put him in the same debating league as Dawkins.  Both seem so jumpy.  They are like coked out versions of Harris.

Harris is great because he cuts right to the heart of the matter every single time and he does so with a vocabulary that leaves his opponent reeling.  Hitchens simply bludgens his opposition to death with rapier attacks and painful sarcasm.

Dawkins and Shermer are too nice to be debating the fools.  Can you imagine how Hitchens would handle Chopra?  HA!  He would lay waste to him.  And Harris, as is customary, would gently shred every idea that left Deepok’s mouth.

 
 
isocratic infidel
 
Avatar
 
 
isocratic infidel
Total Posts:  949
Joined  08-10-2007
 
 
 
30 April 2008 00:44
 

Chopra’s “argument” can be summed up in this one sentence by Shermer:

Chicken soup for the New Age soul.

 
 
Lapin Diabolique
 
Avatar
 
 
Lapin Diabolique
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  10-11-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2008 18:35
 

Oh ye unbelievers. Behold the trifecta from hell.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2008 20:06
 

That’s it. I’m changing my screen name to “Cheap Hack De-Prog”.

Fighting the good fight against woo-woo on the land or on the sea, and whenever it may arise.

Onward, for liberation.

[ Edited: 30 April 2008 20:09 by Traces Elk]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2008 21:40
 

What I pick up on is Deepak’s desperation and defensiveness. What we seem to be witnessing is someone completely intent on forcing his experience to conform to his anticipations. The territory must fit the map, it must, it must, it must. The map is so pure and internally consistent and preconceived.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
CanZen
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  22-01-2005
 
 
 
30 April 2008 22:47
 

chopra-oprah-mcgraw . . . chopra-oprah-mcgraw . . . chopra-oprah-mcgraw . .
Isn’t this some sort of ancient Nepalese meditation mantra?

Bob

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
01 May 2008 10:24
 

For more mind bending verbiage of the religious rather than new age sort, readers must check out the Answers in Genesis website Q & A page,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/God.asp

There is much hilarious reading there, one of my faves was, “Does God have body parts?”

There we learn the answers to deep and confusing questions such as these…

In chapters 2 and 3, Genesis tells us about God’s interaction with Adam and then with Eve. God walks in the garden in the cool of the day, He has personal conversation with Adam, and then an interview with Adam and Eve. What should we make of all this? How could human beings see God, especially after they had sinned, but also even in their non-fallen state?

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
01 May 2008 11:15
 
Salt Creek - 01 May 2008 12:06 AM

That’s it. I’m changing my screen name to “Cheap Hack De-Prog”.

Fighting the good fight against woo-woo on the land or on the sea, and whenever it may arise.

Onward, for liberation.

I think that’s good idea Cheap-Hack! We need to get you a super hero suit and a Saturday morning cartoon show!;-)
In episode 1, Cheap-Hack daringly sneaks into the FLDS compound, does battle with aging polygamist bearded weirdos, saves all the pregnant teenagers wiping their minds free of dangerous, nonsensical propaganda, and gives all the women hot body stockings to wear in place of their long dresses and mormon burkas. Cheap-Hack pulls strings and get them all! a chance to compete on American Idol!

Go Cheap-Hack! Tune in for episode II where Cheap-Hack goes into the past to try to change history by visiting the young gov. Huckabee at his bible college and preventing him from cooking squirrels he caught in his dorm room pop corn popper so that he could eat their brains, thus changing history forever~!
Cheap-Hack Deprog To reality and beyond!!

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
05 June 2008 10:05
 

FYI

Michael Shermer Honorary Degree Citation

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-04.html

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
06 June 2008 11:50
 
GAD - 05 June 2008 02:05 PM

FYI

Michael Shermer Honorary Degree Citation

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-04.html

Thanks for posting this, Gad.

I love Micheal Shermer (almost as much as Sam Harris).

 
 
1