Deepak's Disengenuous BS

[Solitary]

http://youtu.be/PKe4fshETQ4

[kilodelta]

Dick Dawkins just one of them evilutionists that want to kill god. He doesn't really think monkeys gave birth to Jesus.

[Hydra009]

Dawkins has my deepest sympathy for having to actually be in the same room as Choprah, let alone suss things out with him as if Choprah was his peer.

[Draconic Aiur]

The audience was rooting for this turd deepok. And this turd is now harassing Dawkins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/how-richard-dawkins-lost-_b_6172040.html

[Hydra009]

When he wrote his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expected to accomplish two aims that have proved to be remarkable failures. The first aim was social. He wanted to attract a horde of doubters, fence-sitters, and agnostics to gather their courage and join the atheist ranks. This never happened. There has been a quiet, steady decline in church attendance for at least fifty years in the US and Western Europe, and recently a noticeable bump in self-described atheists has occurred. At the same time, around 10% of declared atheists go to church, usually for reasons of community or for their children.

What has decidedly not happened is the success of Dawkins' agenda. As a militant movement, his brand of noisy public atheism remains a splinter group. It has had no effect on national politics, laws, the judicial system, education, etc.

Oh damn, guys!  We didn't make everyone atheists practically overnight (only exacerbated the steady religious decline and boosted atheist numbers) or became a major political force to be reckoned with.  What a catastrophic failure!

Whether a person believes in God or not remains a largely private matter.

Except in the States.  And most if not all of the middle east.

As for Dawkins himself, he has become an embarrassment to the atheist movement, largely for his cranky, arrogant tweets--the godless don't want to be seen with him anymore.

Oh yeah, we totally hate Dawkins now.

But the second aim of The God Delusion was more important, because it attempted to show scientifically that God was a near impossibility.

Well, more like shooting down standard arguments for god (complexity, morality, etc).  But whatevs.

Here Dawkins felt secure, if not invincible.  But his scientific arguments have crumbled around him, as I've detailed in a new book, The Future of God, which I hope will lay militant atheism to rest on rational grounds, not traditional religious ones, while at the same time giving new life to a viable spiritual path.

Speaking of delusions...

It's the anti-God Delusion book I feel must be presented

Now there's an idea no one's tried yet, pigbacking on The God Delusion's popularity to promote its antithesis.  Glad he thought of that so soon after its publication.  It's only been what, about a decade?

so that people don't fall into a kind of passive unbelief for want of a better way.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that happens all the time.  People are just like, "Well, I don't believe in Jesus anymore and I don't know of any religions besides Christianity so I'm just going to become an atheist by default.  If only there was some sort New Age or Quantum Woo huckster out there who could lead me into the light, but sadly, those people are practically extinct in this day and age."

So, how did science fail Dawkins? It was the other way around. Relying on his great hero, Charles Darwin, he intended to use evolution to bludgeon everything religion stands for.

If by "everything religion stands for", he means the argument from design or creationism, then that statement is true.

Dawkins's worldview is rigidly either/or, black and white. If you are on the side of science, you stand for reason, logic, hard facts, verifiable data, skepticism, and the scientific method.  If you believe that God exists, you are automatically irrational, credulous, superstitious, ignorant about science, and probably unable to think logically.

Let's say that thousands of people claim to have seen a ghost. Their experience isn't disproved by arguing that the universe is made of atoms and molecules, rendering non-physical entities impossible.

Actually, yes it does.  If ghosts are non-physical and non-physical entities are impossible, then ghosts must therefore not exist.  People must therefore have seen things that they thought were ghosts that weren't actually ghosts.  Logic!

Yet the nub of the matter, the real reason Dawkins is turning into a footnote in the history of science, is his stubborn insistence on naive realism. This is an extreme form of realism, claiming that what the senses see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is the measure of reality and the only valid way to conduct science--Dawkins used his book for young adults,  The Magic of Reality, to drive naive realism home. But even someone with a passing acquaintance of relativity and quantum physics knows that the five senses are absolutely not the foundation of modern science--exactly the opposite.

*facehoofs*  That's it, I quit.

[Draconic Aiur]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/deepak-chopra-richard-dawkins_n_6140952.html

The Video. IRONY! THIS GUY IS SO RETARDED ITS FUNNY!