Roll the Bones 74 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Don't know if anyone but vb and I actually read it here but he has taken alot of hits for the books and does a good job of answering the critics in this article. Even if you didn't read the book you might find the article interesting.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a...s_b_815742.html Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 niceI hear BG keeps a copy under his pillow. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The debate featuring Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston he mentions is an absolute dismantlement. Deepak's embarrassing mystical non-answers and dodges and Jeans eloquent anecdotal non-issues vs. Sam's solid, intellectually honest reason and logic are a joy to watch. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The debate featuring Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston he mentions is an absolute dismantlement. Deepak's embarrassing mystical non-answers and dodges and Jeans eloquent anecdotal non-issues vs. Sam's solid, intellectually honest reason and logic are a joy to watch.link? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 link? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8-Yxdphsg...feature=related Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The debate featuring Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston he mentions is an absolute dismantlement. Deepak's embarrassing mystical non-answers and dodges and Jeans eloquent anecdotal non-issues vs. Sam's solid, intellectually honest reason and logic are a joy to watch.Just watched it. Regardless of whether I agreed with Sam or not, I wanted to agree with everything he said just because it was so well said. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Deepak's embarrassing mystical non-answers and dodges and Jeans eloquent anecdotal non-issues vs. Sam's solid, intellectually honest reason and logic are a joy to watch.Agreed. Jean just completely ignores every question and tells stories about people helping each other and loving each other. So far I don't think she's said anything at all related to God. I've taken to skipping her responses (I'm on part 8).Although I dislike Shermer's "woo-woo" or whatever the fuck he's saying, I love how he consistently tells Deepak, "You are just saying things that make no sense at all, what the shit are you talking about?" Deepak really gives no explanation for the ridiculous concepts he's inventing, and just says stuff that he thinks sounds deep. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Due to his patience, Sam is certainly better suited for these debates than I am. It would have gone like this:Dan (moderator): Alright, what is the future of God?Deepak: Well, there is such a thing as a donkey. This can be proven scientifically. I am a trained scientist, biologist, donkey herder and sage, so I know that donkeys are scientific. But, and this is important, but, a scientifically testable donkey is not the same thing as donkey-essence. Donkey-essence is what we must keep in mind. Even when there is no donkey, the donkey-essence can be ridden. You must go deep, to the deeper truth of the donkey essence. You can ride this donkey essence into the sunset, spiritually, even at midnight, when there is no sun. You can literally, not physically, but with your body, ride this donkey-essence into the night sun. *audience applauds*Jean: To add to that *dramatic pause*, I had a roommate once - this was in the late 70's - who, despite being beautiful to the eye and melodic to the ear, was troubled. Her troubles sprung from the very depths of her soul, if there is such a thing *glances coyly at me, audience chuckles*. Her troubles were waves of sadness, despair, self-doubt. Her troubles were a torrent of malcontent, surrounding her and tumbling her and drowning her in their palpable weight. One night - it was an amazing night as I remember, crisp air, the glory of the stars piercing the sky and almost speaking to you and telling you that majesty is not dead - she came out into the living room where I was embroiled in study. She stood there for a moment. I asked, "Emily..." - she was the great-great grand daughter of Emily Dickenson, and had all her fire and beauty - I asked, "Emily, are you all right?"She said to me, as her eyes began to well joyfully, "Jean, I just had a dream, and I felt like the Great Spirit was Love. All Love. And now I know that I am Love."So yes, the Great Spirit is Global Love, shared by All, and by God, and by this Chair.*audience applauds*Dan: Excellent. Spademan?Spademan: You are all jabbering fucking morons. The End Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Who's Your Caddy was a book written by a SI writer who caddied for a bunch of different people, Deepak was one of them. Let's just say his 'spirituality' is a little thin when push comes to shove.I did New Year's Eve 2000 for the Deepak muckidy mucks here in PS, and his wife is a clear and unabashed pain in the butt. She threatened to not pay me because she was unhappy with the colors of the balloons in the special effects. I almost purposefully ruined the effects so nothing would work, but decided at the last minute to let the party planner deal with them. She did and I got paid.In other words, Harris debating him is like a holocaust survivor debating democrat Senator Byrd or any other former KKK grand wizard, he wins before they even start to speak. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 This was one of my favorite parts, where he talks about Deepak's review of his book. Ouch. But we must descend further before reaching a higher place: for occasionally one's book will be reviewed by a prominent person who has not even taken the trouble to open it. Such behavior is always surprising and, in a strange way, refreshingly stupid. What should I say, for instance, when the inimitable Deepak Chopra produces a long, poisonous, and blundering review of The Moral Landscape in The San Francisco Chronicle while demonstrating in every line that he has not read it? (His "review" is wholly based on a short Q&A I published for promotional purposes on my website.) Admittedly, there is something arresting about being called a scientific fraud and "egotistical" by Chopra. This is rather like being branded an exhibitionist by Lady Gaga. In retrospect, I see that the haste and bile of Chopra's fake review are readily explained: we had recently participated in a debate at Caltech (along with Michael Shermer and Jean Houston) in which the great man had greatly embarrassed himself. And while I am certainly capable of being both scientifically mistaken and egotistical, I am confident that anyone who views our exchange in its entirety will recognize that I am the firefly to Chopra's sun. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yeah, that was the passage that made me go watch the debate.I still haven't watched parts 9-12, and I'm hoping Deepak actually does talk about donkeys. It wouldn't surprise me. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yeah, that was the passage that made me go watch the debate.I still haven't watched parts 9-12, and I'm hoping Deepak actually does talk about donkeys. It wouldn't surprise me.Great part about #9 is the theoretical physicist in the audience who talks to Deepak. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Great part about #9 is the theoretical physicist in the audience who talks to Deepak.I forgot to tell you, but my wife and I were rolling laughing at the back and forth, especially when the Physicist said, "I recognize all of those words, but I have not idea what you are talking about" Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Sometimes I post things and they never lead to any interest or conversation, but once in a while they hit gold and lead to some interesting things which make forums like this valuable to me others to learn things we might not have otherwise come across. With that said, I had the afternoon off and got to watch all these videos and it fantastic.Spades and others couldn't have said it any better. It was an utter and complete shellacking of two charlatan, woo-woo making idiots. Jean Huston could inspire millions of people to want to gash their ears out with icepicks and could single handedly make a case for no gun laws simply by speaking since everyone was imagining putting her out of her misery.The questions at the end are absolute gold. The Physicist made Chopra look silly. One guy actually asks him to come back to Cal-Tech again simply to make everyone laugh some more. Harris and Shermer have these constant looks as if they are trying to explain a dumb blonde joke to a dumb blonde. It is these type of videos and free access to them that truly give us hope for the future and the "future of religon". Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 FWIW I thought Michael Shermer was pretty bad. Constantly going into the details of experiments and things he was totally losing people and not staying focused on the gist. I didn't find his attitude to be productive at all. Jean Houston, wow what can I say about that performance. Spademan has it down I guess. Just so obnoxiously pretentious. She had no business being on that stage with the others. How many bad accents did she do? Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 FWIW I thought Michael Shermer was pretty bad. Constantly going into the details of experiments and things he was totally losing people and not staying focused on the gist. I didn't find his attitude to be productive at all.Agreed. Shermer was a non-event. Very boring and not "to the rub" oriented. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 Yeah, I tend to agree on Shermer though he kept getting distracted by Chopra. He should have stuck to point more and really didn't talk all that much anyway. Harris was crushing him though. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Wish this guy was around for these debates Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Wish this guy was around for these debatesHe debated Dawkins back in the 80s: http://www.youtube.com/user/scragar#p/u/14/2f0TPd01fJs Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 He debated Dawkins back in the 80s: http://www.youtube.com/user/scragar#p/u/14/2f0TPd01fJs Not the same guy. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Not the same guy.Yeah your guy was part of the debate, its just not labeled that way. This page is probably betterThe 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (Professor of Biology, University of Sussex) and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith (Professor of Pharmacology and consultant) and Edgar Andrews (Materials Scientist & President of the Biblical Creation Society).http://richarddawkins.net/audio/721-1986-oxford-union-debate Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now