And let's not forget that Oprah is in many ways anti-science. Not as much as Trump by a long shot but a cabinet with Dr. Oz and Deepak Chopra?

"Woo" is a pejorative term for any pseudoscientific nonsense.

It can include but is not limited to:
Homeopathy, chiropractics, reki, creationism, crystals, cupping, dietary supplements, chromotherapy, aromatherapy, acupuncture, astrology, reflexology, yetis, unicorns, fairies, Angels, prayer and pretty much everything Deepak Chopra says

No. I'm not doing this. I don't know if you're being condescending or trying to appear intellectual or if you have some genuine inability to communicate clearly, but I cannot be bothered engaging. It's like trying to debate Deepak Chopra... it's just a mass of run-on sentences and points hidden behind pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo.

Also, funnily enough, I'm not interested in arguing with someone who believes they are superior because they alone can see the "programming" that the rest of us sheeple have been brainwashed with.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Interviews-Deepak-Chopra-Enemies-of-Reason

Dangerous Ideas - Deepak Chopra & Richard Dawkins has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Richard Dawkins Interviews Deepak Chopra (Enemies of Reason) has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

I'm happy you don't believe in religion, that means there's hope for you yet. It seems to me, from your posts in this thread, that you sadly have replaced it with the mumbo-jumbo that Graham Hancock and his ilk of snakeoil salesmen (Deepak Chopra comes to mind) preaches.

If there is some sort of altered state; or if consciousness is anything like what these people say, then they should look into them in a proper scientific way instead of going from a personal experience - "I saw it, so it's real!!" That doesn't prove anything.

Get the most skeptical person about this to try it and see if his reaction is actually anything near this.

If Hancock already had some ideas about Mother what's-her-face, then getting positive reinforcement while stoned is easy. Some people don't feel any effects from Hash (or just have really bad types of it), but if your mental state is in the right place, you can even get placebo drunk from water.

I'm not particularly scared of anything DMT has to show, if there's anything there, there are plenty of scientists looking for the next nobel prize in philosophy looking for it.

One thing to consider, why aren't more people looking into this, if it's so important?

atheists by definition don't "believe" any specific thing.

>> ^lantern53:

Atheists believe order comes from chaos.
How do you defend that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

Natural selection and mutation over millions of generations in biological systems produces ordered results. On a cosmological scale, physical forces draw bodies into stable relationships. Science can easily explain how these phenomena occur.

But you don't really want answers.

"Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.">> ^lantern53:

>> ^KnivesOut:
Certainly not by reading children's stories meant to scare simpletons into conformance. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, conclusion.>> ^lantern53:
Atheists believe order comes from chaos.
How do you defend that?


Many, if not most religious traditions use analogy to explain ultimate truths.
But explain to me how order comes from chaos?

>> ^KnivesOut:

Certainly not by reading children's stories meant to scare simpletons into conformance. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, conclusion.>> ^lantern53:
Atheists believe order comes from chaos.
How do you defend that?



Many, if not most religious traditions use analogy to explain ultimate truths.

But explain to me how order comes from chaos?

Certainly not by reading children's stories meant to scare simpletons into conformance. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, conclusion.>> ^lantern53:

Atheists believe order comes from chaos.
How do you defend that?

>> ^PalmliX:

Sam Harris in top form here, not letting Deepok get away with anything which leaves him with basically nothing!


i would not go as far as to say deepok had nothing but i will say that to have a productive discussion you first have to define the terms.

in that regard deepok failed and became quite defensive and combatative while harris was on point once those terms were defined.

i am not usually a harris fan.he tends to get caught up on the religious aspect of the metaphysical discussions but here he let that go fairly early and..in my opinion..was able to better express himself without all the butthurt.

i have to be careful when i criticize harris here on the sift.the fanboys are pretty fanatical in their devotion.

o ZING!

• because i've done pretty decent research on what they have to say and it's almost entirely and demonstrably horseshit (that's a scientific term)

• my agreeing with them isn't particularly important because what they say is commonly if not always outside their area of expertise (icke's area of expertise is football, chopra is technically a medical doctor, and haramein's is, well, nothing). because of this their understand of their "proof" is painfully poor and their conclusions from their proof is laughable. and as i like to say, even if they are right, the method that got them there was wrong (so to speak).

• they do seem to be crazy people who's insanity infects others. SO many people buy into this kind of wishful thinking and i think it's dangerous and damaging to the intellectual process and infrastructure we've spent so long building. it's baseless new age bullshit perpetrated by charlatans.

• babies and puppies are delicious, i don't know what's wrong with you.

• the blanket statement is due to most/all of these ideas having been completely discredited.

• i don't care what you call yourself or them but they are saying things that are untrue. if they were just making up a new mythology that didn't try to have any basis in science or facts then i wouldn't care but they pretend that certain theories mean things when they don't understand the theories in the first place.

• it can be discussed but in that discussion, like this one, it can be dismissed pretty quickly.

• i don't know anything about your "faith" so i can't really comment on it but if you're telling people your faith is an objective truth then we have a problem.


to be clear, i have seen the movie. i know who this kid is and i've seen his other movies (one i liked). just because he spent a lot of money on his informal research does give credence to said research. by volume, i could probably find more information on this type of nonsense than the science they're supposedly basing these ideas on. AKA there is SO much of this garbage out there.



>> ^enoch:

>> ^kir_mokum:
anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.

i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?
why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?
and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?
the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.
i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.
i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.

Not everything in this video is bunk, but if they want me to buy into their big picture at all, much less, even listen to what they have to say, crop circles and Deepak Chopra have exactly the opposite effect.

>> ^kir_mokum:

anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.


i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?

why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?

and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?

the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.

i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.

i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.