Chopra on Skeptics

[ExMinister]

Only because he chooses to age in that way.

The ways of the Bodhisattva are not always comprehensible to unenlightened beings such as ourselves.

Oh, that's a relief. Here I thought it was because he was just making up a bunch of hooey to sell books and get rich.

 

[Brown]

We're "Equal Opportunity Douchebags" here at JREF. We make fun of Dawkins, too:

And occasionally we take sneaky shots at our other buds:

The Bad Astronomy website includes a follow-up, including a mention on the Dean Edell show. Edell characterizes Phil's remarks as "kinda cute." Eeeeew!

 

[Minarvia]

Boy, I thought you at least understood what skepticism was all about even though you have a god belief you can't let go of. This post reveals that thought was wrong.

A skeptic is not a cynic or always disbelieving of any and everything. A skeptic in the sense we see ourselves is a critical thinker. That means if the evidence supports a paradigm shift, we'll be first on the block.

But we don't just buy into magical thinking because it is enticing.


It is a common psychological defense mechanism to think people who don't believe as you do have flawed thinking. But it also means one or the other who thinks the other's thought process is wrong is correct. I'm sorry, but I think your thought process here is flawed. It's not because I am closed minded. It is because you cannot support your god belief with any evidence and more importantly, all the evidence supports the conclusion god believers only believe in mythical gods. There are no real gods.

But I did not come to this conclusion from lack of wonder or lack of openmindedness. And that is where you are wrong.

You put that very well, better than I did. But I think PJ has run off again. I usually enjoy some of his posts but I am beginning to wonder if he is a troll. Of course I haven't read all sections he posts in so I don't really know, but it IS obvious he has no idea, *still* what a real skeptic is. That's why I think he's a kid. Maybe time will improve his understanding.

 

[Dr H]

Oh, that's a relief. Here I thought it was because he was just making up a bunch of hooey to sell books and get rich.

Well... that too.

 

[Minarvia]

Wasn't Chopra a friend of George Harrison's? I recall that some of his tapes has George's music on them. If they were indeed friends it is a shame that one friend of Chopra's (mentioned in the Quantum Workshop tape set) cancer was miraculously cured and George, who loved life, was not.

 

[sackett]

Once again: Can someone invite Deepoop to the forum? Maybe he could defend himself. Surely he doesn't need Plummy.

Tell him it'll raise his Google count. That ought to do it.

 

[grayman]

Chopra was on Conan O'Brien last night. I'll be watching it later on.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

BBC Radio 4's "A Good Read" ( a show where three guests bring along a favourite book, they all read all three and then they talk about them) recently featured some numpty who brought some Chopra book about serendipity because it "changed her life".

Fortunately the other two guests both declared they hated it, one of them taking time to point out factual errors in the book and commenting that "a real scientist would know this". It was really cliched stuff that has been explained by science for a long time.

The numpty's response? Paraphrasing:"Well, he IS a doctor and so knowledgable of stuff so he must know what he's talking about and anyway lots of people like him so there." If she had bothered to only wikipedia him, she would have known that he is a plagiarist and well debunked.

An idiot's book, with an idiot's defence. I was horrified when she started going on about how "There are no coincidences" and was just about to grab my green ink pen and start formulating a letter to the BBC starting "I am not a psycho, but if idiocies like this get to stand unrefuted again I will save all my household waste for a year and come poor it over your entrance..." when the other two piped in and saved me the effort.

Chopra-lovers are now on my list of "extra stupid people".

ETA: And about the Dawkins bashing. I most recently recall Jeremy Hardy on Newsquiz going on about how Dawkins was sooo arrogant and wanted to take all the wonder out of the world.

Firstly, I think that people like Jeremy Hardy often confuse "arrogant" with "more clever than I", and secondly - yes, Dawkins has no sense of wonder just like David Attenborough doesn't. That is why they spend their lives extolling the _actual_ miracles of life in the universe...