Does God Have a Future?

[_Ray A]

Enough with the stupid UFOs.

And enough with stupid people who draw conclusions without looking at evidence.

Anyway, that was an enlightening debate. While Dr. Chopra was indeed full of it, I think it was, at least, a harmless form of doo doo that he was advocating. Even a cynical atheist like myself could find no harm in it.

Shermer could have quit making cynical monkey-faces, but I have to say Harris conducted himself well. I was impressed. In this interview they didn't at all come across with the dyed-in-wool certainty they seem to profess in their writings. That was even more impressive. Chropra put up a better fight than I expected, and his injection of humour at the beginning nearly stole the show.

[_keithb]

Enough with the stupid UFOs.

Anyway, that was an enlightening debate. While Dr. Chopra was indeed full of it, I think it was, at least, a harmless form of doo doo that he was advocating. Even a cynical atheist like myself could find no harm in it.

The doo-doo that he was pedaling in the debate was harmless enough. It's basically unfalsifiable, and it seems to be an improvement from prejudice plagued religious dogma.

However, I ceased to have respect for Chopra once I realized that he runs a multimillion dollar per year business that offers "spiritual healing": a mix of pseudoscience and herbal medicine to do things like prevent cataracts (by spitting into a cup and washing your eyes with the spit) and cure cancer (through "mind control"). So, on that level, his worldview is extremely pernicious.

Of course, one could make the argument that "curing" cancer through mind control is no different than "curing" cancer through a priesthood blessing . . .

. . . not that I would make that argument :)

[_Buffalo]

And enough with stupid people who draw conclusions without looking at evidence.

I realize you have a UFO hobby horse. But does it really need to derail this thread? Jeeze.

Anyway, that was an enlightening debate. While Dr. Chopra was indeed full of it, I think it was, at least, a harmless form of doo doo that he was advocating. Even a cynical atheist like myself could find no harm in it.

Shermer could have quit making cynical monkey-faces, but I have to say Harris conducted himself well. I was impressed. In this interview they didn't at all come across with the dyed-in-wool certainty they seem to profess in their writings. That was even more impressive. Chropra put up a better fight than I expected, and his injection of humour at the beginning nearly stole the show.

He put up a good fight, but the volume of his voice didn't make his arguments more convincing.

[_Buffalo]

The doo-doo that he was pedaling in the debate was harmless enough. It's basically unfalsifiable, and it seems to be an improvement from prejudice plagued religious dogma.

However, I ceased to have respect for Chopra once I realized that he runs a multimillion dollar per year business that offers "spiritual healing": a mix of pseudoscience and herbal medicine to do things like prevent cataracts (by spitting into a cup and washing your eyes with the spit) and cure cancer (through "mind control"). So, on that level, his worldview is extremely pernicious.

Of course, one could make the argument that "curing" cancer through mind control is no different than "curing" cancer through a priesthood blessing . . .

. . . not that I would make that argument :)

I see - I didn't look into his business. That's pretty shady.

[_Eric]

I read this Chopra book (as an atheist) and I still have no problem recommending it: Life After Death

Great book.

[_keithb]

The doo-doo that he was pedaling in the debate was harmless enough. It's basically unfalsifiable, and it seems to be an improvement from prejudice plagued religious dogma.

However, I ceased to have respect for Chopra once I realized that he runs a multimillion dollar per year business that offers "spiritual healing": a mix of pseudoscience and herbal medicine to do things like prevent cataracts (by spitting into a cup and washing your eyes with the spit) and cure cancer (through "mind control"). So, on that level, his worldview is extremely pernicious.

Of course, one could make the argument that "curing" cancer through mind control is no different than "curing" cancer through a priesthood blessing . . .

. . . not that I would make that argument :)

I see - I didn't look into his business. That's pretty shady.

For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html

[_Ray A]

For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html

So all of Shermer's skeptical works, television and film appearances, radio and web appearances; his columns and books are all for? Charity? The modern Nietzsche and skeptics' hope of the 21st century who announces "God is dead" is beyond criticism?

Michael Shermer’s and Sam Harris’s Muddled Views on Moral Philosophy.

I think it was you who said Shermer himself is no scientist, but if we're getting into the "money and fame game" Shermer isn't exempt.

The Anointed Saint of the Skeptics is even into name dropping.

But this, of course, is no sin to them, because he condemns "woo-woo".

[_Ray A]

I see - I didn't look into his business. That's pretty shady.

It's called Poisoning the Well.

[_keithb]

I see - I didn't look into his business. That's pretty shady.

It's called Poisoning the Well.

In this case, I think not.

If I had, for example, tried to debunk Chopra's claims by saying that he is an adulterer, you might have a point.

However, the negative information presented has a direct relationship with his viewpoint in the video and, at least to me, goes a long way towards an alternative (to believing them) reason why Chopra might support the viewpoints he does in the video. His livelihood is based on selling self help and alternative medicine texts, much of which he supports through pseudoscience-mixed-with-religion, similar to that seen in the video. So, I merely presented evidence that he has a direct financial incentive to lie about the subject matter of the video.

Therefore, my link speaks to the the motivation of the witness, and the "well poisoning" label is incorrect.

[Guest]

It's been said many times before that humans are hardwired to seek out their origin. I imagine it's natural for many to ask such questions. Some likely more disposed to asking and seeking than others.

I happened upon this poem today and thought it was somewhat appropriate to the thread topic. I think that if people spent more time trying to lobby governments toward ensuring the health of the human future and less time trying to worry bout God's future this earth might see one less war zone. One less poverty stricken country.


It doesn't interest me if there is one God
or many gods.
I want to know if you belong or feel
abandoned.
If you know despair or can see it in others.
I want to know
if you are prepared to live in the world
with its harsh need to change you.
If you can look back
with firm eyes
saying this is where I stand.
I want to know
if you know
how to melt into that fierce heat of living
falling toward
the center of your longing.
I want to know
if you are willing
to live, day by day, with the consequence of love
and the bitter
unwanted passion of your sure defeat.

I have been told, in that fierce embrace, even
the gods speak of God.

~ David Whyte, from Fire In the Earth