Richard Dawkins & Deepak Chopra (Sub) | El Encuentro del Siglo | CDI 2013 Dangerous Ideas

Diálogo entre el multipremiado científico Richard Dawkins con el famoso escritor y médico Deepak Chopra sobre si existe un propósito en el universo, si la religión es buena o mala para la humanidad y la relación entre la ciencia y la espiritualidad. Siendo ambos científicos de formación tienen diferentes resultados y diferentes formas para explicar la ciencia. También, la plática por un lado aborda problemáticas ligadas a la ciencia y su metodología frente a los fenómenos de la conciencia y el misticismo, el origen de la vida, el universo y el lenguaje y, por el otro, la espiritualidad y sus problemas del lenguaje y la confusión que puede conducir.
Richard Dawkins:
Richard Dawkins (Miembro exclusivo de la Real Sociedad de Londres, Fellow of the Royal Society, FRS) fue profesor "Charles Simonyi" de la Cátedra de la Comprensión Pública de la Ciencia (Public Understanding of Science) de la Universidad de Oxford hasta su retiro en el 2008.
Hizo su doctorado en Oxford bajo el ganador del Premio Nobel, el zoólogo Niko Tinbergen. Es autor de doce libros como: El gen egoísta (The Selfish Gene), El fenotipo extendido (The Extended Phenotype), Destejiendo el arcoiris (Unweaving the Rainbow), El capellán del diablo (A Devil's Chaplain), El cuento del antepasado: un viaje a los albores de la evolución (The Ancestor's Tale), El espejismo de Dios (The God Delusion) y Evolución. El mayor espectáculo sobre la Tierra (The Greatest Show on Earth).
Deepak Chopra:
Es el creador de la Fundación Chopra y, cofundador y Jefe del Centro Chopra de Wellbeing en Carlsbad, California. Es cronista para San Francisco Chronicle y The Washington Post, y contribuye regularmente con Oprah.com, Intent.com y The Huffington Post.
Chopra es conocido por ser un prolífico autor de más de 75 libros, con 21 bestselles de The New York Times, tanto de relatos de ficción como obras ensayísticas. Los libros del Dr. Chopra han sido publicados en más de 35 idiomas. Sus últimos bestsellers incluyen Súper Cerebro: Nuevos avances para maximizar la salud, felicidad y bienestar (Super Brain: Unleashing the Explosive Power of your Mind to maximize Health, Happiness, and Spiritual Well Being), Guerra de dos mundos (War of the Worldviews), Reinventa tu cuerpo, resucita tu alma (Reinventing the Body, Resurrecting the Soul) y Soluciones espirituales (Spiritual Solutions - Answers To Life's Greatest Problems).
Todos los derechos reservados. © Poder Cívico A. C.
Prohibida su copia, distribución y venta sin permisos del autor.
La Ciudad de las Ideas es un Festival Internacional de Mentes Brillantes con sede en la ciudad de Puebla, México. Andrés Roemer, Presidente de Poder Cívico A.C., es el audaz curador del festival.

[@blacksheep5183]

That thing at the start made me check if I clicked on the right video.

[@jadenhalstead7290]

I thought I was the only who saw that. What the fuck was that doing right before a debate about God?

[@NikhilMathew122333]

🤣🤣🤣

[@carolthomas8528]

Black Sheep - The whole idea was to whip the crowd into a frenzy - rather like a charismatic preacher - all hot air .

[@desarguesbaptiste5577]

I thought that was quite funny but didn't understant either ^^

[@UKFX]

That dude dangling down slowly looked like he had no clue what he was doing lolol.

[@ani4787]

1:02:59 “A good metaphor is one that clarifies and does not obscure” - what priceless words 👏🏼

[@eminkuliev2466]

Not necessarily, not necessarily. A good metaphor may take you out of the intellect and to a different realm, realm of feelings and ... .. more

[@abelochoa584]

Dawkins´ definition of a metaphor is only words. Chopra beat him from beginning to end. What Dawkins called jargon was backed by those many scientists Chopra named: Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose, Lawrence Krauss and other world famous physicists.

[@JakeEssex]

@@abelochoa584 shut up, talking nonsense 🤣🤣🤣 my guys tryna say atoms are conscious, and you agree👀🤣🤣 embarrassing

[@d3rduck]

FOR YOU SIR

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Good News but not common knowledge Mr Josh Timonen helped Richard Dawkins with his website and he also helped him produce documentaries and sell merchandise. Josh Timonen had been Richard Dawkins right hand man for many years and for this loyalty, Richard gave special thanks to Josh in his book “God Delusion” published 2nd Oct 2006, another invention of Richard’s carrying no substance but his opinions, fancies and whims, he further dedicated another book to him called “The Greatest Show on Earth” published on the 3rd Sept 2009. Richard’s interpretation of life. Mr Josh Timonen has today become a born again believer in Jesus Christ, this must have really hurt Richard Dawkins and his crusade against the God he hates without a legitimate cause. How that his books could not capture the heart of Josh, but when he truly came under the sound of the gospel, he became broken in heart and spirit giving his heart to the Lord. The Bible is the book of life. In the parable of the wheat and tares the servant came to the land owner saying did you not sow good seed upon your land, how is it that there are tares among the wheat. The Master said an enemy hath done this. The servant said shall I pull up the tares from among the wheat. The Master said wisely, let both grow together until harvest, lest you pull up some of the wheat with the tares. Josh Timonen appeared to be a tare but turned out to be wheat. Let us continue to pray for Richard Dawkins, that he will repent, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! The Bible can seriously damage your health, so if you are an atheist or agnostic, don’t go near it as its truth is eternal in duration when it comes to spiritual truth manifested in the life of Jesus. Josh now believes in loving God and loving his neighbour as himself. What a wonderful change in his life has been wrought since Jesus came into his heart. The Bible is the book that the Chinese Communist Part fears more than any other book, because it tells the truth. The North Korean Communist Party fear the Bible, the Russian fear the Bible, in-fact all false religions fear the Bible and its content, because there is power in the loving words of Jesus to change lives. No other religion teaches thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Jesus went further, if you want to be disciples of mine, then you must love your enemies, and as we abide in Jesus daily he enables us to love our enemies, something we could not do in the natural, but when the supernatural is allowed to be imposed on the natural then we are changed into new creatures in Christ. This is why Christians are persecuted and imprisoned for distributing Bibles and preaching the gospel of God’s love and wisdom through Jesus Christ. Fear paralyses communist countries and all false man- made religions. In short people are afraid of the Bible otherwise they would leave Christians alone. Many people read the Bible to find fault with it! A Pharisee named Ga-ma’liel a doctor of the law gave sound advice to the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem saying: Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this council or work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:38-39]. What sound advice but they didn’t take heed. It is still the same today. Satanists in their temples and those involved witchcraft burn Bibles on a regular basis because of its contents. The devil and demons are consumed by great fear because they know that their time is short. The prophetic word will be fulfilled despite all the sufferings of Christians who have taken up the cross and followed Jesus to eternal glory.

[@Ericsahi]

“Sometimes I start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going to end up” -Michael Scott - Deepak Chopra

[@riccardoromeo5346]

joe biden

[@jayaramj9630]

That's very comedically humourous man

[@realhumanbean7915]

chopra in a nutshell

[@ShawnGonsalvez]

😂😂😂 love a good office reference

[@xfunkypicklex]

Really hit the nail on the head there 👍

[@KXSocialChannel]

I've never heard so many words spoken with such authority but with absolutely no meaning or truth behind them. Well done for developing such a skill, Deepak.

[@josephengel8263]

I started using the words “consciousness”, “universe”, “quantum” more frequently and now I have a bunch of potheads following me around and calling me “guru”. When do I get my diamond encrusted glasses?

[@stfu_rito]

they are actually rhinestones

[@nicolasyacar7181]

He believes in pantheism but he’s just to stupid to recognize it, and you know, he makes a few bucks out of his stupidity. Which is even more stupid. He will rationalize all his life. He deeply may have good intentions tho.

[@Rigvedification]

@Robert atom has consciousness only when one smokes the woo woo weed

[@Shahid-mh8cj]

@@Rigvedification i see you're a fellow who loves James Randi 🍻

[@Rigvedification]

@@Shahid-mh8cj I do admire him for exposing spooky nonsense 🎊

[@leftrightandcenternewslike5571]

Dawkins expressions are priceless when Deepak talks... Laughing my head off...

[@realhumanbean7915]

@Nisha chambiyal *BREAKING NEWS: PERSON DISCOVERS EMOTIONS AND SUBJECTIVITY*

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Good News but not common knowledge Mr Josh Timonen helped Richard Dawkins with his website and he also helped him produce documentaries and sell merchandise. Josh Timonen had been Richard Dawkins right hand man for many years and for this loyalty, Richard gave special thanks to Josh in his book “God Delusion” published 2nd Oct 2006, another invention of Richard’s carrying no substance but his opinions, fancies and whims, he further dedicated another book to him called “The Greatest Show on Earth” published on the 3rd Sept 2009. Richard’s interpretation of life. Mr Josh Timonen has today become a born again believer in Jesus Christ, this must have really hurt Richard Dawkins and his crusade against the God he hates without a legitimate cause. How that his books could not capture the heart of Josh, but when he truly came under the sound of the gospel, he became broken in heart and spirit giving his heart to the Lord. The Bible is the book of life. In the parable of the wheat and tares the servant came to the land owner saying did you not sow good seed upon your land, how is it that there are tares among the wheat. The Master said an enemy hath done this. The servant said shall I pull up the tares from among the wheat. The Master said wisely, let both grow together until harvest, lest you pull up some of the wheat with the tares. Josh Timonen appeared to be a tare but turned out to be wheat. Let us continue to pray for Richard Dawkins, that he will repent, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! The Bible can seriously damage your health, so if you are an atheist or agnostic, don’t go near it as its truth is eternal in duration when it comes to spiritual truth manifested in the life of Jesus. Josh now believes in loving God and loving his neighbour as himself. What a wonderful change in his life has been wrought since Jesus came into his heart. The Bible is the book that the Chinese Communist Part fears more than any other book, because it tells the truth. The North Korean Communist Party fear the Bible, the Russian fear the Bible, in-fact all false religions fear the Bible and its content, because there is power in the loving words of Jesus to change lives. No other religion teaches thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Jesus went further, if you want to be disciples of mine, then you must love your enemies, and as we abide in Jesus daily he enables us to love our enemies, something we could not do in the natural, but when the supernatural is allowed to be imposed on the natural then we are changed into new creatures in Christ. This is why Christians are persecuted and imprisoned for distributing Bibles and preaching the gospel of God’s love and wisdom through Jesus Christ. Fear paralyses communist countries and all false man- made religions. In short people are afraid of the Bible otherwise they would leave Christians alone. Many people read the Bible to find fault with it! A Pharisee named Ga-ma’liel a doctor of the law gave sound advice to the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem saying: Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this council or work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:38-39]. What sound advice but they didn’t take heed. It is still the same today. Satanists in their temples and those involved witchcraft burn Bibles on a regular basis because of its contents. The devil and demons are consumed by great fear because they know that their time is short. The prophetic word will be fulfilled despite all the sufferings of Christians who have taken up the cross and followed Jesus to eternal glory.

[@phoenixj1299]

Nothing is as laughable as Christianity

[@davidbanner6230]

On August 2, 1776, sixteen American colonies declared themselves independent of British colonial Government. We can but wonder of what kind of a world we would be living in today, if this seemingly uneventful event, had not taken place? Would we today be using German, or Russian, as our native language? Would we have television, air travel, internet, international communications, and the levels of democracy we now enjoy, and so many other freedoms we now take for granted? America grew from that precarious beginning into the world power we know to which, had it never existed would not have been there to counter-balance the brutal rogue giant regimes that were to emerge in the following hundred or so years ahead…? The question is….was it just a coincidence, that the rise and development of the US, was just a coincidence at the right time, in the right place, of the right power, to protect the fragile idea of democratic freedom, when it was desperately needed? Or was it a preordained awareness of the evilness that was about to be inflicted upon a still - quite primitive - world…? Although some Atheists will sneer at the possibility of there being more to existence than just evolution, and we can never think beyond doubt that it may have been more than coincidence, we are left with such as ‘why did the Japs bomb Pearl Harber, when the carriers were not there? ‘Why did Hitler make the biggest mistake ever of declaring war on the US? So many things to ponder….

[@Marius-vw9hp]

"Chopras hair has awareness and the ability to curl itself" - Freeman Dyson.

[@TicoAcosta]

Hahahahahaha!

[@donkaler213]

i don’t think he said that he should sue you

[@rafaelgonzalezj]

@@donkaler213 welcome to Internet!

[@donkaler213]

@@rafaelgonzalezj u clearly didn't watch the video then😂

[@PittsburghSonido]

Rafael González Bro that’s what Dawkins said in this debate. Donkaler is joking.

[@devJ002]

I need Deepak Chopra's confidence when he talks about random shit that he doesn't have a clue on.

[@dumont-art3971]

What I can tell you is that all that D.Chopra says is in keeping with Kant and Plato and most certainly all of the Vedas, particularly Vedanta. It is a true expression of Non-duality of the wisdom traditions This, in turn, is in keepig with both quantum physics and metaphysics. Mr. Chopra is speaking of ontology and epistemology. Mr. Dawkins has restricted himself to empirical materialism, only. Much kindness.

[@S_Bellew]

@@dumont-art3971 - Plato had been proven wrong on virtually everything what he said. He was big in the past, but he's mostly irrelevant in the modern day. Neither you, nor Chopra have any idea what "quantum leap" means. Also, there's no such a thing s "quantum shift".

[@dumont-art3971]

@@S_Bellew @Vadim Ivanchenko Dear me. If you can explain me any of what Plato was talking about, perhaps we could go further with the conversation. In general we are talking about epistemology and ontology Vadim. Who, if you don't mind me asking, would you or forward as an exemplar of superior understanding of metaphysics - Immanuel Kant? Hegel? Deepak Chopra is putting forward understandings which are in keeping with these peoples discussions.

[@dumont-art3971]

@@S_Bellew Metaphysics does not become 'irrelevant' Vadim. The reason for this is that if is an explanation of the 'timeless'. It is knowledge of true Being, true Knowing. It is experience of the Eternally True. This does not, we might, very humbly say, change with time. Rather, is it not so, the 'ever-changing' goes on ad infinitum. This, in the ancient traditions, is known as Mara, maya or prakrti. We might also call it 'flux'.

[@dumont-art3971]

@@S_Bellew Plato, for example, was talking about the 'figures on the wall of a cave', saying that all most of us see, are the dancing shadows as the fire lights up the figures. To really see truth, or Reason, we need to Go Beyond the illusion. How do we do this? According to Kant, Schopenhauer and Deepak Chopra, we must transcend the mundane. How do we do this? This is the domain of metaphysics. As stated, Mr.Dawkins is keeping to 'nice little, safe,' empirical-reductionist ' science'. I mean no ill will to Mr. Dawkins or to yourself, however, I must highlight that towering majesty of metaphysics over 'sense-based' reductive techniques.

[@pablof6257]

42:20 Dawkins: "I shall not make an argument ad hominem. My argument is ad bullshitem." Priceless.

[@ME-od8id]

I know, yet his 'blood pressure' according to the snake oil salesman was needing to come down.

[@Jessiejam-44]

I think Chopra likes to hear Himself talk.

[@hoenircanute]

@@Jessiejam-44 Every word he utters is to form the audience, picking up on the slightest thing and forming his argument as it goes on.. Like George Galloway and all other DEmagogues, Alex Jones for that matter.. demagogues..

[@gabrielalvarez5194]

“Ad Ridiculum” fallacy demonstration

[@SanSha2100]

ad bullshitem, actually proves that, Dawkin was using ad hominem fallacy of science 101 yet again, and your liking it proves your love for abusing opponent because you know you cannot defeat him.

[@charlesrump5771]

Deepak demonstrates the Theory of Devolution.

[@jadenhalstead7290]

I think he is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

Marc Driscoll was reading a quote about how people have their feelings hurt and complain about anything by Spurgeon. And says. "That's B.B before blogging. Totally different epoch in human devolution."

[@bullymaguire2061]

It boggles the mind... How can a mind like his have survived for so long lol...

[@vishakhatripathi9608]

dawkins was talking facts, but chopra was talking ideas--don`t compare the two

[@trankt54155]

@@bullymaguire2061 The answer is,.....money.

[@Sanjiban5]

Deepak thinks "If you can't convince a person, confuse him"

[@nairobi1519]

Confuse with heavy words and scientific terms

[@danaignat8790]

exactly... pure gibberish!!!!!!

[@lukpo1997]

Are you Shure that is not just a part of the people that don't understand what is he saying? Does for exple the term "ego death" or "cosmic counsciousness" means something for you? If you ever had a transcendental experience, you will understand (and I'm not saying this implies a metafisical reality)

[@buboclan]

Gargon - A ridiculous word from the ideology of Jubril that was formed by mistakenly saying it instead of jargon. It has now evolved to mean a mixture of Garbage and Jargon

[@johnlawrence2757]

@Sanjiban Bairagya Not difficult in your case

[@eeshaduggal5047]

Each word Prof Dawkins says is so well thought out. Not a word wasted.

[@confidential303]

That is because you are not capable enough to understand the higher materials. If I talk to a little kid do you like 1 ice cream or 2 ice creams, they understand that but If I am talking about How to add up Balance sheet of corporate organizations they blank out.

[@charlescole645]

It's ironic that the people who believe in mystical and magical things are more like the kid who enjoy and cares about ice cream while the actual scientists know how to "add up balance sheet of corporate organizations".@@confidential303

[@normanthrelfall2646]

A lovely sight every morning Every day I see a lovely sight: little girls and boys with their hats and coats on, holding mum’s hand and thus trusting them for guidance on the way to school. They also trust teachers for their education; that they are being taught Facts in each subject. These little children deserve to be taught the truth and not be indoctrinated with Darwinian Evolution. I have studied evolution for many years in the various fields of science, and you can trust me; that there is no credible evidence for the theory. I keep up to date with all the major developments. It is a bottomless pit; full of hidden assumptions which the general public are not privy too. Evolution is a library of theories trying to rescue the main theory continually; without much success may I add. Educating these young lives with this fundamental extremism will lead them down a path of self- destruction; into an immoral lifestyle. The truth is evolution is a Faith; not part of science. It is committing academic murder to teach that evolution is a Fact of science. It is robbing them of GOD-CONSCIOUSNESS. That is searing their conscience with a hot-iron to the reality of what is truly right and what is wrong. At best, evolution is a religious faith and should be treated as such in schools in relation to religious education. Am I your enemy because I tell you the truth I trust not?

[@RohanRajadhyaksha]

Indeed. Deepak, on the other hand, dishes out an incoherent word salad and resorts to ad hominem attacks when he runs out of remotely coherent things to say. What a charlatan!!

[@normanthrelfall2646]

I have no respect for him because he disregards, ignores and suppresses evidences against evolution that call it into question. Genesis chapters 1- 11 is recorded in Chinese pictographs which are silent witnesses of events, these are rather like fingerprints of historical facts that took place, being historical in character not forgeries. Evolutionists believe everything is a forgery if it calls evolution into question, we must not go against this world religion of Darwinian Origins for it is a sacred cow. We must ignore, suppress and disregard any evidence that calls evolution into question. The pictographic clues to our ancient past have remained in hidden view for thousands of years. There is evidence of antiquity which is undeniable, but evolutionists will always remain arrogant and defiant to the reality of this evidence. The question is: Where did the Chinese picture concepts come from? Concepts that are memorialized in ancient Chinese pictographs and why do these figures match the Genesis account. Many Chinese people who were former communists have recognized the historical account in Genesis in their pictographic ancient language and have turned to Christ for salvation, knowing that their for bearers had knowledge of their migration from the Tower of Babel. These are just three pictographs as examples and there are others for those who want to do their own research. Noah’s Flood is mentioned in pictographic evidence particularly where the symbol for eight is concerned, because eight persons entered the Ark. It doesn’t matter what evidence points towards Creation, fall, Flood and redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, evolutionists as goats will still head-butt the evidence, such as andesite stones carved with dinosaurs on them found in Nazca tombs in the desert with patina on them which takes thousands of years to form, speaking of antiquity. Dr Dennis Swift through this evidence he discovered doing excavations, turned him 360 degrees from an evolutionist to a creationist. Dinosaur figurines which are quite numerous in Mexico were studied by Dr Don Patton and were found to be genuine. See you-tube. The evidence is clear that the indigenous Indians lived alongside dinosaurs a few thousand years ago. They did not die out 65 million years ago, this is purely a religious concept. The Turin Shroud depicting Jesus crucified was produced, when the fire of God’s presence raised him from the dead, leaving a negative impression on the shroud which scientists have tried to reproduce, in order to prove it a forgery. When the Lord’s body was exposed to God’s light, just like film being exposed in a camera to light, it produced a negative. In all these things God has not left us without his divine witness of events.

[@scienceofreality]

Respect for Dawkins for being patient...

[@ammarsiddiqui3602]

much respect

[@r4h4al]

They were both patient.

[@HAL-iv2kd]

@@r4h4al Chopra wasn't, because Dawkins at least knows how to make a point.

[@badtuber1654]

Dawkins is several lvls bellow Deepak inteligence, and the fact he does not respect the amazing Deepaks insights, drops him a few lvls more, or maybe he is doing his part on purpose for the debate. Dawkins logic -> "you have spoken "Word Salad Jargon" ,"ad bullshitem" . I have proven your argument wrong. " Then he claims to be all Scientific . LOL

[@polaristrans]

@@badtuber1654 "Dawkins is several lvls bellow Deepak inteligence" LOL

[@beeguy300]

When Chopra speaks, I get the illusion that I understand what he is saying. When Dawkins speaks, I know that I understand what he is saying.

[@Jessiejam-44]

Chopra likes to hear Himself talk.

[@kimbirch1202]

It is easy to say what folk already believe, but that doesn't mean those beliefs are correct. It is harder, but more profitable to challenge existing beliefs

[@westonkienel4733]

@@Jessiejam-44 LoLkkjltaaly l 0alalaLLHLJKK0

[@lieblingmike]

The very definition of casuistry .

[@dumont-art3971]

That his, I say with kindness, because he speaks in the most base form. hHe speaks of the very averages of human experience. He speaks nothing of Knowledge or Gnosis.

[@jerrysky4598]

The takeaway I got from this is just because science hasn't answered all the mysteries of the universe, doesn't give another faction the right to interject their particular guesses and call it a day.

[@roscius6204]

you need to watch more theological debates, pretty much that every time.

[@lazylenni1017]

Sums it up pretty accurately.

[@Matstarx25]

Richard: My name is Richard Dawkins. Host: WOW! POR FAVOR un applauso.

[@enekaitzteixeira7010]

YA VES. Era híper exasperante. Por Dios, hasta ha pedido un aplauso cuando el charlatán de Chopra dijo que los átomos tenían imaginación... flipante.

[@souviksarkar.7219]

You reminded me of Juan Cervantes

[@coolguy5772]

I really wonder what Richard Dawkins was thinking while WHATEVER THE FUCK WAS GOING ON IN THE BEGINNING was going on

[@MarcoScetta]

LMAO totally!

[@kakashifuijin]

My thought exactly

[@Piterixos]

I actually liked the music xD

[@tigressnsnow]

KlaasDeKaasBaas They were hooked up to a translation device. You can see that black device in their ears.

[@khjewels]

Hilarious!! I thought I was on the wrong video!

[@danieldelanoche2015]

Deepak: May I ask you a question? Dawkins: Yes Deepak: *proceeds to ask 27 questions in a row*

[@travispratt6327]

Mathias Fernandes Duarte Coelho Well Yea cause there’s nothing wrong with deepak doing that, he can ask as many questions as he wants as long as it’s all the same point he’s getting at. It’s only if he brought up multiple unrelated points that it’d be considered a gish gallop.

[@travispratt6327]

Mathias Fernandes Duarte Coelho Oh, whats the meme?

[@caballeromatias1992]

and even so he does not understand why the one who reddens with shame is in the MATRIX

[@2fast2block]

Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

[@PROSCOPEGaming]

@Mathias Fernandes Duarte Coelho Whats the meme? Tell us

[@yoursbadal]

Title should be "Torturing Dawkins straight for one hour."

[@PittsburghSonido]

Seriously... Not only was Chopra insufferable, but the way this debate was situated ended up a total disaster. Takes 13 minutes for the opening question and it was such a boring question to boot. This was a meandering debate. One that I don't always like watching unless I have watched all of Dawkins's other debates on KZbin. lol

[@souravsahoo1582]

Dawkins is good but..not any best scientist..he is narrow minded

[@sibadityapal1493]

@@souravsahoo1582 Oh really? And will please elucidate on your judgment of Dr. Richard Dawkins, Professor at University of Oxford. Do also state your credentials in all their magnificence, because you must be very well-qualified and erudite to be offering a critique of Dr. Dawkins in a single sentence through the medium of an obscure KZbin comments section.

[@souravsahoo1582]

@@sibadityapal1493 he is not open minded..these people have a serious problem in accepting spiritual concept..deepak Chopra's words make sense..but dr. Dawkins is not open minded

[@indomins_rexx7209]

@@souravsahoo1582 yep, every individual word makes sense, but when u combine them, they dont😂😂

[@alancoellopilay]

Excellent comments and arguments by Richard Dawkins.

[@alainmaitre2069]

By both of them .

[@TheTrumpBoy]

That was a horrendous format for a debate moderated by a loud blockhead!

[@nicolasvasquez7062]

That wasn't a debate

[@tommydawson7147]

He wasnt that annoying, the Format was bullshit, give them 10 or 15 minutes to explain

[@shamanicrevolution2204]

Literally. 90 seconds wtf.

[@thomasshrum4006]

@@shamanicrevolution2204 Lucky for Dawkins it doesn't take more than 90 seconds to point out bullshit.

[@guichec3786]

a serious debate and chopra is an oxymoron

[@ricardocalderon1721]

Richard Dawkins thank you so much for your clear and wise comments.

[@nullifidian13]

I physically feel the pain of Dawkins in this debate.

[@acpliego]

I really don’t know how he accepted this.

[@nullifidian13]

@@acpliego mate everyone physically cringes when Deepak is involved... watch some other interviews/debates... he's such a scam artist

[@codewalters]

Seriously it was torture for him.

[@peterbarker8249]

Q)⁸88⁸@@acpliego ⁷

[@The_IND_Miyota]

Truly Dude

[@lawrencenjoroge]

If you close your eyes this sounds like a conversation between Richard Dawkins and King Julien from the penguins of Madagascar

[@hiheloByby6902]

" Oxygen has Emotions " __ Deepak Chopra

[@sumairahmad9464]

Dawkins has raped an amoeba . It told me in my transcendence . Arrest him - Depak

[@bint-abdullah]

@@sumairahmad9464 😂😂

[@raajkumar9030]

But oxygen is generated from conciousness but oxygen has memory and water has memory...its already proved....for anything which has memory,there should be fundamental orgin rite ?..

[@tommydawson7147]

Thats true, you didnt see tha water experiment with words....

[@anandhua.b4589]

@@raajkumar9030 bruh

[@antonioclaros156]

Richard Dawkins: We as scientist try to explain difficult things in a simple way so people understand , we do not us complicated jargon in order to confuse people. Deepak Chopra: I like to move it move it, I like to !move it!!

[@chrisbennett6260]

thats a gross exaggeration you came in with as usual your prejudices that your very statement reflects and i am neither in one camp or the other

[@Itsnickcherry]

@@chrisbennett6260 lol nah he was pretty accurate

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Good News but not common knowledge Mr Josh Timonen helped Richard Dawkins with his website and he also helped him produce documentaries and sell merchandise. Josh Timonen had been Richard Dawkins right hand man for many years and for this loyalty, Richard gave special thanks to Josh in his book “God Delusion” published 2nd Oct 2006, another invention of Richard’s carrying no substance but his opinions, fancies and whims, he further dedicated another book to him called “The Greatest Show on Earth” published on the 3rd Sept 2009. Richard’s interpretation of life. Mr Josh Timonen has today become a born again believer in Jesus Christ, this must have really hurt Richard Dawkins and his crusade against the God he hates without a legitimate cause. How that his books could not capture the heart of Josh, but when he truly came under the sound of the gospel, he became broken in heart and spirit giving his heart to the Lord. The Bible is the book of life. In the parable of the wheat and tares the servant came to the land owner saying did you not sow good seed upon your land, how is it that there are tares among the wheat. The Master said an enemy hath done this. The servant said shall I pull up the tares from among the wheat. The Master said wisely, let both grow together until harvest, lest you pull up some of the wheat with the tares. Josh Timonen appeared to be a tare but turned out to be wheat. Let us continue to pray for Richard Dawkins, that he will repent, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! The Bible can seriously damage your health, so if you are an atheist or agnostic, don’t go near it as its truth is eternal in duration when it comes to spiritual truth manifested in the life of Jesus. Josh now believes in loving God and loving his neighbour as himself. What a wonderful change in his life has been wrought since Jesus came into his heart. The Bible is the book that the Chinese Communist Part fears more than any other book, because it tells the truth. The North Korean Communist Party fear the Bible, the Russian fear the Bible, in-fact all false religions fear the Bible and its content, because there is power in the loving words of Jesus to change lives. No other religion teaches thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. Jesus went further, if you want to be disciples of mine, then you must love your enemies, and as we abide in Jesus daily he enables us to love our enemies, something we could not do in the natural, but when the supernatural is allowed to be imposed on the natural then we are changed into new creatures in Christ. This is why Christians are persecuted and imprisoned for distributing Bibles and preaching the gospel of God’s love and wisdom through Jesus Christ. Fear paralyses communist countries and all false man- made religions. In short people are afraid of the Bible otherwise they would leave Christians alone. Many people read the Bible to find fault with it! A Pharisee named Ga-ma’liel a doctor of the law gave sound advice to the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem saying: Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this council or work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God [Acts 5:38-39]. What sound advice but they didn’t take heed. It is still the same today. Satanists in their temples and those involved witchcraft burn Bibles on a regular basis because of its contents. The devil and demons are consumed by great fear because they know that their time is short. The prophetic word will be fulfilled despite all the sufferings of Christians who have taken up the cross and followed Jesus to eternal glory.

[@juanmacaballero33]

Jajajajaj fantasia no !!! No pudiste escuchar por tus prejuicios !! Pero en todo el debate se noto la superioridad (en términos de consciencia) a favor de chopra !!! Me gustaria que debatimos al respecto !! Te parece ??? Es una pena que la mayoria de comentarios estén a favor de una ser completamente conectado solamente con su hemisferio izquiero, que parece mas una maquina que un ser humano Me gustaría saber que opina acerca del amor ? O la felicidad ?? Porque no debe tener ni puta idea. Como todos los que los siguen... Solo te sugiero una cosa: Investiga en profundidad a Einstein (uno de los mejores científicos de la humanidad) cuando le preguntaban sobre la existencia de dios, él siempre respondía que creía en el Dios de spinoza. lo que habla el científico spinoza es lo mismo que explica Chopra sobre la conciencia !! te invito a que lo investigues y lo escuches sin prejuicios en la mente porque eso te nubla tu receptividad. Y no solamente a Einstein y spinoza. !!! Investiga enseñanzas de Sócrates, buda y millones de científicos orientales !! Como nikola tesla hablan de la conciencia Investiga y Estos tipos son muchos mas que este chico Dawkins

[@juanchymartin7824]

​@@juanmacaballero33Spinozq no era cientifico. Su Dios es la monada. La naturaleza misma en donde todos. Spinoza es el padre de gran parte del materialismo ya que dice que no me pertenece mi cuerpo sino que yo soy mi cuerpo. Ademas nosotros no podemos modificar la realidad con la mente ni esta es un completo fenomeno, porque sino por medio de voluntad podriamos cambiar dicha situacion de forma inmediata dicho elemento, critica ya hecha por Frege hace mucho. Dawkins tiene una de las teorias mas interesantes con los memes, despreciar a alguien de esa manera es ridiculo. Algo mas que lo diga Einstein no significa que sea verdad y a si vez el ayurveda sobrevive sobre bases hinduistas que no se encuentran en Spinoza como quedo ya claro.

[@Dimera09]

wtf is this shit at the beginning hahaha

[@no22sill]

Lol

[@rakeshkumarjha7252]

That is at least better than the Rotten-Deepak-Talk

[@totty2524]

This beggining is so overly-epic and dramatic, it's hilarious, I love it.

[@venkatnz1229]

science says it does not believe in god but it uses Infinity quite often to prove the theories. what is infinity if not god.

[@totty2524]

@@venkatnz1229 Not god.

[@grkr8942]

I nominate Richard Dawkins for a sainthood!

[@arivindharanbalakrishnan418]

I nominate ur mom's crack

[@jefolson6989]

The irony!

[@fihimafihi]

Every time Deepak speaks universe sneaks behind the couch in the lounge and begs mercy!

[@lincolnsixecho1947]

I loved when doctor Dawkins said "I shall not make an argument ad hominem. My argument is ad bullshitem".

[@andrewconnell3653]

At minute 42

[@Nokapp23]

No. See www.quora.com/Are-atoms-sentient. And there are others too

[@briansmith3791]

@LincolnSixEcho: Dawkins exhibiting his usual arrogance. People with deep belief systems simply cannot comprehend someone who disagrees with them. They think they're either liars or morons. I've had painful experience of this. About 16 years ago, i visited a long-time friend. An atheist, whom i had respected as a mentor for 25 years. During our conversation, i mentioned scientists had recently discovered something called 'Dark Matter' and i told him what i had read in New Scientist about it. He made a 'sour' face. When i laughingly asked him "why the look, do you think i'm telling lies?" he said "yes." I left his home that day and have not spoken to him since. A good man threw his closest friend in the bin with one word, because he refused to accept facts that he thought would affect his materialist beliefs. Dawkins falsely called Chopra a liar, said an eminent physicist was wrong without evidence, even called the audience liars, for the same reason my ex-friend called me a liar.

[@shinobiexmuslimatheistapis5867]

@@briansmith3791 This is the problem with Hinduism the caste system is ingrained in its identity. Just like deepak kept trying to use argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority fallacy a number of times in his arguments the basic sadhu/guru/pandit does the same the only difference is deepak is trying to keep Hinduism relevant to educated Indians while the sadhu/guru/pandit scams the uneducated Indian masses. The similarity is that both want to keep people ignorant by filling their minds and time with spiritual and metaphysical bullshit. It is to conform with hindu society and appear knowledgeable with in any group even if your the most ignorant person their is. Abrahamic religions have one cult. In hinduism every brahmin or pseudointellectual can create confusion and his very own cult. The scientists who do not pay attention to religion like Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson. Who don't want people to remain ignorant due to their religious believes try to reach as large an audience as possible. They know the evils of Christianity and Islam. They do not know the disease of spreading any and all ignorant beliefs in Hinduism. It can be rewritten to fool anybody. Hinduism is like liquid poison. you put in a bottle it will become the bottle. you put it in a glass it will become a glass. changing it shape does not make it any less poisonous.

[@natanaellizama6559]

@@shinobiexmuslimatheistapis5867 I don't think so. Deepak made appeals to authority not in a fallacious way at all. He did not state "X said so therefore Y is true". He's appealing to authority because Dawkins stated that he was stating incomprehensible word salads, while he was stating views by prominent scientists, so even if he were wrong in his belief it would not be a bullshit belief. If you want fallacies speak of Dawkins who DID make ad hominems.

[@floydcomstick5960]

on behalf of the youtube community , let me rename this video to its correct situation "Footage of Richard Dawkins Being Tortured"

[@itheangel8817]

So fuckin true lol

[@marciodasb5189]

HAHAHAHAH yes, please

[@VkXGames]

Poors Dawkins :'v

[@AmreshTripathi]

Epic

[@ruffelhouse561]

Yeah, poor Dawkins having to deal with this pea brained maniac

[@sergiomerino1434]

31:28 When Richard inhaled and puffed the oxygen right out as a reaction from hearing the complete stupidity of Deepak was hilarious 😂 I understand Deepak is in a debate but pulling shit out your ass like that is worse than admitting your opponent is right.

[@MrSkme]

Admitting your opponent right is a great thing. It means that you learnt something and it is something that requires great courage to do. Sheeple think that you lose when you admit your opponent is right but it is actually only then you win as the only way to truly win is to aquire new knowledge.

[@ConvictedFelon2024]

Deepak's presence at the debate was an insult to Richard Dawkin's intelligence.

[@pourushsirohi4091]

Intellectualism not intelligence.

[@muchanadziko6378]

@@pourushsirohi4091 whatever "intellectualism" is in this scenario And the OP meant "intelligence"

[@FakingANerve]

It was also an insult to his patience. How it survived intact is better proof of any mystical unknown than any of Deepak's bullshit screeds.

[@troyano6548]

Totally agree with you 💯

[@qalat23]

I could only say thank you for sharing your thoughts. Richard Dowkin's is a light for all blind people of the world and Deepak is the one who sell beautiful lies.

[@uzumakitak1109]

"I'm gonna put 'quantum' in every sentence and that will make it scientific"-Deepak Chopra. "Voy a poner 'cuántico' en cada oración y eso lo hará científico"-Deepak Chopra.

[@usmanazam449]

I like how u translated that

[@renzosanchezfalcon8885]

aea otaku

[@sankalp2520]

Why'd you write it twice? Why did you write it twice?

[@OrangeUtan1]

"Do you guys just put the word quantum in front of everything? "

[@juanmacaballero33]

Jajajajaj no pudiste escuchar por tus prejuicios !! Pero en todo el debate se noto la superioridad (en términos de consciencia) a favor de chopra !!! Me gustaria que debatimos al respecto !! Te parece ??? Es una pena que la mayoria de comentarios estén a favor de una ser completamente conectado solamente con su hemisferio izquiero, que parece mas una maquina que un ser humano Me gustaría saber que opina acerca del amor ? O la felicidad ?? Porque no debe tener ni puta idea. Como todos los que los siguen... Solo te sugiero una cosa: Investiga en profundidad a Einstein (uno de los mejores científicos de la humanidad) cuando le preguntaban sobre la existencia de dios, él siempre respondía que creía en el Dios de spinoza. lo que habla el científico spinoza es lo mismo que explica Chopra sobre la conciencia !! te invito a que lo investigues y lo escuches sin prejuicios en la mente porque eso te nubla tu receptividad. Y no solamente a Einstein y spinoza. !!! Investiga enseñanzas de Sócrates, buda y millones de científicos orientales !! Como nikola tesla hablan de la conciencia Investiga y Estos tipos son muchos mas que este chico Dawkins

[@jabibgalt5551]

Deepak: How many people understood what I was saying? [Crowds applauds] Dawkins: You're lying! That was sweet.

[@franciscomirandahernandez7510]

It was embarrassing... I don´t understand why many people who assisted to that event doesn't speak english even in a basic level.

[@sinkec]

Francisco Miranda Hernández Too bad you weren’t on that stage to enlighten us all with that stunning grammar of yours

[@johnlawrence2757]

Jabib Galt Dawkins should have been banned from media appearance for life for calling the audience liars: how dare he do such a thing.

[@jabibgalt5551]

@Ezio Auditore Why does it have to be about skin color? Maybe they just agree with him.

[@jabibgalt5551]

@@johnlawrence2757 Oh, the mind of an authoritarian. "He should've been banned from media appearance for life!" Are you THAT sensitive and dictatorial? If you can't handle a statement that accuses people of lying, you're what it's nowadays called a "snowflake". Moreover, it's revealing that your concern is not on whether the public were indeed filled with liars, but your concern is that Dawkins called them that.

[@zerz4617]

Deepak Chopra is not an idiot. This guy is a professional and amazingly talented gaslighter and conman.

[@w9ill856]

Troll he's a troll with a PHD

[@mv3560]

Chopra claramente sabe que la vida sin biologia no nos llevara a nada que tenga que ver con la evolucion natural de la humanidad, es cosa de ver en que estamos 2024, saliendo de la oscuridad!sin espiritualidad el ser humano no es nada

[@davidbanner6230]

On August 2, 1776, sixteen American colonies declared themselves independent of British colonial Government. We can but wonder of what kind of a world we would be living in today, if this seemingly uneventful event, had not taken place? Would we today be using German, or Russian, as our native language? Would we have television, air travel, internet, international communications, and the levels of democracy we now enjoy, and so many other freedoms we now take for granted? America grew from that precarious beginning into the world power we know to which, had it never existed would not have been there to counter-balance the brutal rogue giant regimes that were to emerge in the following hundred or so years ahead…? The question is….was it just a coincidence, that the rise and development of the US, was just a coincidence at the right time, in the right place, of the right power, to protect the fragile idea of democratic freedom, when it was desperately needed? Or was it a preordained awareness of the evilness that was about to be inflicted upon a still - quite primitive - world…?

[@LesPaul2006]

"Atoms can think." Deepak Chopra.

[@ErickRelentless]

LesPaul2006 That Phrase can be seen as the most smartest thing ever said, as well as the most stupid. But actually no one can prove that is right or wrong.

[@LesPaul2006]

Erick Relentless Evidence strongly suggests it is wrong. They do behave weird allright, but not as if they could think.

[@ErickRelentless]

You're right, there are "strong" evidence on both sides but nothing is proved.

[@LesPaul2006]

Erick Relentless Not on both sides. The only "evidence" for the consciousness of atoms is Chopra's wishful thinking.

[@ErickRelentless]

LesPaul2006 The double slit experiment it's a really good point to believe that atoms has some kind of awareness, also some of the conclusions of Shrödinger. In the other side we have the postulate of Decoherence that is enough strong to make you think that atoms are not aware.

[@malayneum]

if you close your eyes, this is a debate between Dawkins and the Lemur in Madagascar.

[@juleslu8403]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@matwatson7947]

It's so true. I closed my eyes after reading this comment. Hilarious

[@ericksoledispa2726]

Hahahaahhahaah

[@internationalrtg5602]

Best comment 😂

[@Jaithesaintt]

Waiting for parking the past hour. ANGRY. Lmao. And now I’m cracking TF UP 😂😂😂😂

[@downswingplayer9712]

It starts at 11:40

[@hectormaestro2063]

Thank you.

[@d7dh523]

Thanx

[@pprkt0]

Thanks

[@nitinkrishna710]

Thanks

[@DocBree13]

thank you!

[@482jpsquared]

I hope that Dawkins had the opportunity to read these comments to know the appreciation so many have for him. Yet, I assume he does and doesn't require the admiration.

[@Lu5ck]

i am not a science person but it seems like deepak is talking about many different things including way of life to prove his points while dawkins using accurate honest words to explain facts

[@0oMag]

Lu5ck what did Dawkins actually explain? Specifically? All I heard was that he can't actually prove anything.

[@madelena1234]

Dawkins is not able to comprehend Deepak, as you are not either.

[@BlueFury2577]

@@madelena1234 That's because Deepak isn't saying anything of substance. You're just easily fooled by the sciency words sprinkled at random in his sentences.

[@Elintasokas]

@@0oMag You don't have to falsify nonsense for it to be nonsense. All Deepak did was spit out unfalsifiable, nonsensical claims one after another. I could say there's invisible magic god stuff flying in the air that controls our subconscious minds. Does that mean it's rational to believe in such a thing just because you can't prove me wrong? Hell no.

[@0oMag]

@@Elintasokas how is that in any way shape or form coherent to my question?

[@martintraphagen3698]

"Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water." This is the dynamic between these thinkers - you tell me who is who.....

[@usmanazam449]

Deepak is an idiot that i know

[@baitman2368]

Nietzsche?

[@2fast2block]

I can say this, Dawkins is a loser. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”

[@krazykirl1129]

That's profound! I have a nick name for Chopra, Deepcuck.

[@2fast2block]

Krazy Kirl "That's profound! I have a nick name for Chopra, Deepcuck." I'm no fan of Deepak at all and I'm sure not a fan of dolt Dawkins. As I showed, he hates science.

[@nabils9837]

27:10 "you're lying" LOL I love Dawkins' brute responses

[@LucasBatistussi]

Nabil Saleh I love that moment

[@ddsgabo]

I think Richard was just tired of so much ignorance and got frustrated.

[@briansmith3791]

@Nabil S : 79 likes for a comment that 'loves' Dawkins calling ordinary people liars! He is publicly showing his contempt for those of us who are not of the 'elite', who didn't attend Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale etc, and 79 people applaud this? To paraphrase George Carlin, 'Wake up, it's a big elitist club and YOU ain't in it.'

[@HAL-iv2kd]

@@briansmith3791 Shut the fuck up, you willing ignorant

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodsa9058]

@@HAL-iv2kd Shut the fuck up you unwilling ignorant!!!

[@kevinsysyn4487]

I used to work with head/brain injured people, accident victims, embolism stroke... etc. I can tell you when you interrupt the chemicals in the brain consciousness is affected in every way. I've never seen an exception to this. So while I can't explain how chemicals produce consciousness I can tell you that.

[@romefox]

That intro is how Deepak interprets science.

[@SweetComputing]

I am in complete awe at how Dr. Dawkins tries to drive the audience back to the point comprehension from the jargon Dr. Chopra is throwing out there in quantum leaps in not so quantum quantity..

[@2fast2block]

Really? Loser Dawkins puts you in awe? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”

[@SanSha2100]

In simple word you are saying that you HATE deepak and have no interest in scientific exploration.

[@luisferreira6189]

@@SanSha2100 deepak engages in a quasi scientific illusion and speculation it is not a sound evidence based scientific method

[@MistaaPep]

@@SanSha2100 WHATTTTT

[@kimbirch1202]

Some folk are willing to believe what they are told to believe by science, although they have no.direct personal evidence, in just the same way that some believe everything they are told to believe by religion. Don't have any blind beliefs, but keep an open mind.

[@davidsosa538]

Dr. Dawkins has the patience of a saint

[@ayoungconservative1051]

To him that would be an insult.

[@SanSha2100]

That is why he used ad hominem fallacy of science 101, several times. No saint or person with patience will use abusive language.

[@tayyeb2590]

The irony 🤣

[@MarkusAxunIllianus]

Deepak: I explain something I hardly understand with something I do not understand at all.

[@paulkiarie6538]

"i respect scientist who use a simple language to understand,"i like that.

[@danielbastidas8109]

I need Richard's patience

[@laststrikestudios1839]

If we all had Dawkins' patience the world would be a better place.

[@TheContrariann]

True

[@Being_Jeff]

Of the two which one showed the most patience to the others point of view?

[@afireinside0]

Deepak es el rey del uso del Ad Hominem, mejor llamémoslo "Ad Bullshitem", pero a la inversa, intentando dar crédito a lo que dice fardando de sus trabajos, publicaciones y reseñas. El hecho de que trabaje con otros científicos no implica que lo que dice es cierto. No entiendo cómo siendo médico y pudiendo haber dedicado su carrera a hacer verdadera ciencia se dedica a mezclar miles de ámbitos que nada tienen que ver, metiendo "cuántico" por allí, "evolución" por allá, "conciencia", "condicionamiento", ¿HOLA? Pobre Richard, menuda paciencia tuvo que tener para no levantarse de la silla e irse ante tanta tontería, eso antes de sufrir un infarto

[@tayanedepaula7123]

best comment I've read so far, that was exactly what I thought when I was watching the debate haha

[@gilanin]

Lo más escalofriante de este individuo (Chopra) es que él tiene un apelo convincente para personas que creen que son inteligentes o personas que no tienen cierto conocimiento científico. Tienes toda la razón acerca del juego de palabras que usó, pero eso sólo convence a personas que no tienen mucho conocimiento. Deepak es una persona despreciable y lo más triste es que si ellos dos tienen un debate en cualquier país latinoamericano o muy religioso (combinado con ignorancia o cierta falta de educación), Chopra ganaría el debate.

[@afireinside0]

gilanin A mí me aterra precisamente por eso, porque dependiendo del público gana el debate ampliamente, y encima cuando logra convencer a la gente ya es difícil sacarles de ahí. Viendo un programa de Oprah donde le invitaban y le escuchaban como el rey de la sabiduría, con un público de miles de personas ovacionándole, con la presentadora dándole bombo y alentándole, con Lady Gaga diciendo "es la persona más importante de mi vida"... (literalmente, está en KZbin), me di cuenta de lo serio que es esto. Es una pena este personaje, es que encima tiene éxito y convence a gente que a la vez influencian a muchísimas personas. Es muy importante tener un espíritu crítico y alentar a los demás a que hagan lo mismo... Por suerte queda gente para rebatirle y dejarle en evidencia.

[@gilanin]

Oh el horror! Ví uno de sus debates en CalTech (abc NEWS) contra Harris y Shermer. La gente se reía de Chopra como si fuese un payaso. Y en este video la gente le aplaude. No me sorprende que personas en países más avanzados que, por ejemplo, la mayoría de los países subdesarrollados piensan que somos monos. Aquí el moderador se pregunta como es posible que teniendo la misma formación académica pueden estos dos llegar a conclusiones tan diferentes. Primero que todo, ni siquiera personas del mismo campo de estudio que Chopra (medicina) apoyan sus ideas. Sería difícil encontrar un científico respetable que lo soporte. La misma formación académica no quiere decir que las ideas que resulten tengan la misma validez. Por eso es que las teorías se ponen a prueba, y cuando no se puede negar la validez es cuando se aceptan. Pero Chopra no es más que un charlatán.

[@Matricula404]

afireinside0 Totalmente de acuerdo contigo, Deepak como Jaime Mausán mezclan de aquí y de allá, lo envuelven con un alo misterioso-científico-espiritual, y les sale un champurrado que venden a mucha gente ingenua. En fin, se rajó al último. Quizá la conciencia de cada uno de sus átomos le gritó: "córrele o te darán otro revolcón". Pero seguirá, porque su verborrea le deja muuuuucho dinero.

[@drvanhelsingz5133]

Dawkins is an excellent and honest intellectual who truly respects his audience.

[@jameswoodhouse1843]

I find him rather arrogant

[@riaklungmoita4923]

Dawkins cannot answer questions from his opponent..

[@drvanhelsingz5133]

@@riaklungmoita4923 bc they’re not intelligible. Sensible questions.

[@FakingANerve]

@@riaklungmoita4923 You misspelled his name. It's C-H-O-P-R-A. Just a friendly FYI.

[@abelochoa584]

Dawkings can be called an intellectual, but never an honest person. His rampant atheism has engulfed his honesty. He lost the debate from the first to the last word. He's not an honest person.

[@tsjayaraj9669]

If Quantum theory explained in Deepak Chopra's books worked , we could have seen him still young.

[@mauriciocastaneda6097]

que comentario tan estupido

[@carpev3938]

@@mauriciocastaneda6097 You're stupid.

[@NikkyKicks]

skip to about 3:26 to skip the crazy opening

[@NikkyKicks]

11:36 is where the dialogue actually begins

[@garygarcia05]

I scrolled down looking for some comment like yours. Thx a lot!

[@kozhedub]

My question is WHY

[@kingcastaway07]

thank youuuuuu!!! you are a nice and lovely person xD

[@magnified4827]

Nicholas Nace learnt some Spanish 😄😄 nice language.

[@anshiman]

Chopra's logical fallacies: - Ad verecundiam - Ad ignorantium - Ad bullshitem

[@howardginsberg2598]

Ad crapidum

[@dottalks8156]

Ad monetizatium Ad HD Ad vent Ad herence

[@mouthofspaghetti7817]

One person is coherent, easy to follow and the other is Deepak

[@2fast2block]

Lies to other liars can be easy to follow. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

Man when I was younger I thought it would take me a while to understand deepak but as I grew and understood more (went to university) I realized it’s not important lol. I can literally skip but just listening to his keywords and move on to next line. Because the sentences have no meaning they are just built on keywords to make them sound interesting. Dawkins is legend

[@drawbaguilkilju5804]

:D

[@baitman2368]

lol

[@ravenvalentine4919]

he just sounds like he knows soo much when clearly he does not understand anything , he is like a science book after a dog eats it and poops it and you try tor read the torn and chewed pages , all the words are there but they mean nothing

[@helmutgensen4738]

How did you manage such a terrible leap of faith? closing your mind so spontaneously

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

@@helmutgensen4738 took me 5 years. Wasn’t spontaneous

[@deepmodex]

Poor Dawkins.. it s like arguing with a kid who is talking nonsense.. And people tend to applaud bullshit.

[@vividhkothari1]

That applaud is really what annoys me the most. But I think it's just the environmental factor that makes people applaud after someone talks in that fashion. And even if 99% people think he is BS, 1% people applauding will make rest of them also applaud.

[@arkadiuszjandylewski152]

Yeah just like in history when someone proposed a spherical earth. People like you also laughed.

[@adamkings3823]

what you don't understand is not bullshit. you sir are a dummy

[@roybecker492]

adam kings are you seriously implying that deepak is not a charlatan???

[@madelena1234]

You are as inappropriate as the Vatican was when they burned Giordano Bruni alive in Piazza Farnese Rome, just because he said the world went around the sun. Dawkins worships at the altar of mainstream science. And you worship him as if he was a God who never makes mistakes. Dawkins is not a God. Dawkins is a highly intelligent man and one can admire his need to gain knowledge, but his anger and disrespect for those who "think" differently to him, besmirches his reputation.

[@IEE-nc3jc]

It's really remarkable that Deepak can talk complete nonsense for that amount of time without having any regret 😂

[@emmmanueeel]

He is making a lot of money out of it...

[@abdulfahadabro5294]

You are idiot and will remain idiot he is the one who trying to take you out from your idiotness.

[@sudhak5057]

Just because you don't understand something, that does not make it complete nonsense!

[@asolomoth1066]

It does if the person saying the stuff doesn't understand it...

[@respectfulgamer7232]

@@abdulfahadabro5294 Why don't you explain why he's an idiot?

[@arifhyt]

Whatever science doesn't have an explanation for, Deepak has it.. consciousness, consciousness,consciousness.

[@Neodipo]

Lmao that mediator needs to start hosting wrestling matches. Lmao what a hype man.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

I’m not sure he had an understanding of the issues or languages being spoken.

[@w9ill856]

I never thought that before you're right hahaha.

[@leopardosss]

LOOOOLLLL

[@dream11paradise60]

This debate is like Richard dawkin say 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 then comes 10 Deepak chopra 1,2,44,59,70,99,a ,b c,d the comes XYZ

[@katrhiknaidu1989]

😂😂😂😂

[@azap12]

Good summary

[@asolarasolarasolar]

Great summary, fella' I'm getting the feeling that Derpak talked 3x more than Dawkins.

[@cristianuribe412]

@@asolarasolarasolar But Deepak almost always loses the main idea of his arguments

[@DocBree13]

no - because the components in your list are actually in order 😊

[@jimmy90249]

If you want to know about consciousness and Quantum Mechanics, you should watch a debate between Quantum Physicists, not a Biologist and an alternative medicine doctor.

[@MikkoVille]

I am truly baffled that some (or very many, apparently) find Deepak Chopra somehow wise and intelligent.

[@damirdze]

Dr Dawkins did excellent. It is very difficult to deal with the people who mingle the scientific concepts in such a way to produce confusing hipothesis.

[@vandanamalhotra1657]

Damn, Richard Dawkins is one very patient man. Very honest and patient. Bless him I wish him very good health. Deepak I feel was genuine in his quest for scientific education but lost his way into fiction as he is bringing up some questions of thought from all the scientists of various fields and textbooks he mentioned

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

Deepak Chopra had always been a charlatan since the very beginning. Why did a person as intelligent as Richard Dawkins even accepted to debate with this idiot?

[@FakingANerve]

The guy formed his image through has signature diamond-studded glasses and a load of lucrative endorsements showing his smug mug wearing them. I think it's quite easy to see the intentions of Deepak's quest and how genuine he really is. What baffles me is how the grift ever worked.

[@briansmith3791]

@@FakingANerve ..and Dawkins came from British Colonial Kenya, brought up with native servants, then to England to a house paid for by a slave-owning ancestor. From fee-paying private school to Oxford, where he has lived ever since. And people wonder why he has no idea of the world the rest of us live in? His condemnation of Julian Assange says it all.

[@24DeepSky]

I respected Dawkins more after watching this.

[@gopi1618]

How did this Deepak Chopra get so many audiences throughout the world, it is surprising.

[@positivesecret]

You have to have a soul to understand

[@thomasward3309]

Seeing this live must have been legendary

[@TunezCottage]

I couldn't imagine listening to Deepak without having the option to pause, take a few deep breaths and facepalm.

[@shamanicrevolution2204]

Literally

[@killerrabbit2693]

@@TunezCottage How about a large amount of drugs before listening to this nimrod?

[@lopendepaddo]

An hour of Dawkins talking to a brick wall.......

[@rayzhong8542]

lopendepaddo I would prefer that. At least it would be Dawkins talking all the time and brick walls wouldn't say any bullshit.

[@joshuamitchell1733]

One brick wall says that we don’t know what consciousness is but we somehow know it originated from the brain (dawkins). Do you understand the contradiction in that belief??? That begs the question IF YOU ADMIT YOU DONT KNOW WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS THEN HOW THE HELL CAN ONE SAY FOR CERTAIN IT COMES FROM THE BRAIN?

[@CristalTapioca]

I think the brick wall is Dawkins, not being able nor willing to comprehend Deepak, offending him and at the same time when he had a chance to make a question to him he pulled out a quote, like a fan, like he truly wants to understand him but his scientific formation limits his understanding

[@shabztar123]

@@CristalTapioca if you think you understand the word salads deepak is famous for then ive got some bad news. Youre not even 1 10th as clever as Richard. Just stick to debunked conspiracies if you want to feel smart about something

[@CristalTapioca]

@@shabztar123 what about salads? :s

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

It was like watching an adult speak with a teenager for an hour on what it’s like to be an adult.

[@sudhak5057]

So who was the adult here?

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

@@sudhak5057 I thought you were serious for a minute.

[@sudhak5057]

@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 I am serious!

[@SantaClaauz]

Presumably the one cursing and insulting is not the adult?

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

@@SantaClaauz the one who is a pigmy in the world of science and reason and who believes in non specific non demonstrable ideas

[@benjaminfrueh1526]

I had to pause each time after Chopra spoke, so that I could clear my head of the intense, throbbing pain and listen to the intelligible, sensible, articulate response from Dawkins.

[@ravenvalentine4919]

its like you need to wash your brain from the stupid after every exposure , i have no idea what sorta haypiles exist in the heads of people who live on chopacobra's woo saladios

[@gigachama]

They have headphones in the audience, so I'm assuming they're translating it as they go. I wonder how the translators translate Chopra's word salads. Must be a complete headache.

[@goatamongsheep4296]

The english 'translation' is flawed = not accurate; and they are speaking ENGLISH. I can just imagine how many errors there must be in translation to another language.

[@Kevin-ul8ux]

Or maybe it's really easy to translate nonsense. Just say a bunch of words in another language that, together, make no sense.

[@massivemikeh]

Deepak Chopra sounds just like King Julian! Yes, from Madagascar. Lol

[@dizastavina]

Legendary

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@simay4977]

Choprah and the Woo-woo again. I've never heard so many words being spoken without anything being said.

[@vegeta1729]

Very well said!

[@mikedean5060]

Try Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Palin

[@DocBree13]

true - except for the parts where he was just plain wrong

[@DocBree13]

A K this is all even worse than the crap Chopra sells - you are completely ignorant or just lying about all of the science you included - and the rest isn’t even wrong it’s so ridiculous

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Find Jordan Peterson when he gets onto God. You’ll hear it.

[@leafgreensniper13]

Dawkins earned my respect at the 48:05 mark by admitting ignorance for how conscious exists.

[@QueensLadyDay]

"Science is the product of Consciousness!" Deepak Chopra

[@raajkumar9030]

Yes right. You are alive means you are concious. If you are dead how will scientific stuffs happens

[@azmainfaiak8111]

​@@raajkumar9030just like deepek says atoms has consciousness......does atom die too??

[@jalsiddharth]

The number of facepalms RD had this session is the stuff of legend lol.

[@vanshsharma9002]

Rd sharma?

[@juliannevillecorrea]

deepak chopra is unpleasant . richard dawkins is patient !

[@spotserafin]

Ad hominem

[@indianmilitary]

julian correa there is a limit in putting up with atheist morons. Abrahamic religious faiths = fairy tales. Agreed but Hinduism = Quantum physics. Deepak chopra is talking about hinduism and its high philosophies from which quantum physicists got all their quantum theories and validated them mathematically and experimentally.

[@spotserafin]

Dawkins is ignorant on Quantum Physics, Spirituality and it seems in philosophy. Don't let the blind lead you into blindness.

[@juliannevillecorrea]

Sebastián Jácome please point out his " ignorance "

[@Scottoest]

+Sebastián Jácome Yeah, everyone knows quantum mechanics is just the practice of spouting spiritual-sounding babble and throwing in the word ''quantum"" every now and then.

[@trevorsimmons1768]

I have year 7 students with a stronger comprehension of matter than Deepak has. Still shocked Richard gave him the time of day.

[@confidential303]

Trevor don't overestimate yourself. There are kids that knows more about this universe then you ever will be.

[@JonasAnandaKristiansson]

Matter does't exist. I feel for your students.

[@darkenergy8318]

Chopra fallacies : 1) Personal incredulity . 2) Composition fallacy . 3) Argument from authority .

[@quotesofaeon9408]

I'm from India . I believe some thoughts of Deepak Chopara but whatever he's saying here is bullshit .

[@alisonmartinez4437]

Que ganas de escuchar todo lo que tenían que decir sin interrupciones.

[@braulioramirez7224]

X2

[@Leismar]

X4

[@jimmysix5220]

La forma del debate como una lucha de catch es un desastre 🤦.

[@Richytomaster]

Cómo no consiguieron un mejor presentador para este diálogo tan extraordinario?!

[@jondalarpv2029]

Su problema es que tiene un ingles pesimo y estoy seguro que hubo mucha gente que solo aplaudió por aplaudir

[@ruloruiz3069]

De pena ajena y el publico también :(

[@oppanheimer]

Dawkins is the honest one in this discussion and I respect all his attributes, especially his patience.

[@astraestus8828]

This was entertaining 🤣🤣 I don't know how Dawkins got through this.

[@DavidRuizTijerina]

For the sake of perspective, the journals that Chopra brags to be published on are: NeuroQuantology: impact factor of 0.378, ranking 239 out of 252 among neuroscience journals. (For reference, a respectable peer-reviewed journal usually has an impact factor >= 1.0. Impact factor=people read it and cite it, as it's relevant for their research work.) Journal of Cosmology: This journal is so irrelevant that it's not even indexed by cosmology and/or astrophysics databases. It has been constantly accused of publishing without rigor and spreading speculation by scientists and even NASA. Don't let yourselves be "bamboozled," my friends.

[@DavidRuizTijerina]

Additional details: his paper in the Journal of Cosmology argues about the role of the observer by citing interpretations of quantum mechanics dating back to the 1930s, completely ignoring the fact that there are several fields of physics-- particularly in condensed-matter and statistical physics--- that have been answering many of those questions for decades. No formal theory is proposed and no results are achieved in the paper.

[@vpower7632]

Word salad. I never heard the term before but when I hear this Deepak spew, I understand the term without a need to have it explained.

[@natanaellizama6559]

He misused it. What Deepak stated was comprehensible. You may argue he was wrong, but it is blatantly dishonest and contrary to debate etiquette to call it 'word salad' just because he was unable to comprehend it. You can't argue with 'word salad', it isn't an argument, it is an ad hominem.

[@phild249]

@The Iguana It's a get out for not having factual answers, a diversionary tactic to fill the time,and to convince those who don't understand that he was talking jargon.

[@ThePookaHarvey]

@The Iguana Chopra is using scientific terminology in a way that doesnt make sense in the way that scientists define them. It's possible he has his own definitions for these terms, philosophers sometimes do this, but in such circumstances where your definitions differ to the widely accepted ones you need to explain what they are. Without an accepted definition of the words we use to debate one another the conversation has no meaning. Chopra never takes the time to define the special meanings he might be giving to these terms which would make the things he says make sense. In the most charitable light possible, he might well be making profound points, but the onus really should be on him to make them intelligable.

[@david203]

I am very impressed with this audience, who through their applause and other reactions show a great deal of intelligence in evaluating these two speakers. This clearly shows the excellence of the public education available in México.

[@rekunta]

Applauding Deepak’s nonsense is certainly not indicative of intelligence in the evaluation of his arguments. They are laughably pseudo-scientific ramblings that should be mocked, not applauded.

[@chrisbennett6260]

@@rekunta one man meat is another man poison

[@BetoIME93]

@@rekunta The problem with Dawkins is that he doesn't understand the concept of consciousness of Chopra, this universe is hierarchical, there are complex systems that integrate other more complex systems that react to their environment, if this reaction is called the "level of consciousness" then we can exemplify the cells that make up our body, they communicate through chemical signals but are not aware of the being that they integrate, Dawkins is like that cell unable to understand the hypothesis that it could form a more complex system and that it could therefore have a level of consciousness incomprehensible and superior to that of the human being

[@husamstarxin4626]

@@BetoIME93Yes, Dawkins doesn't understand consciousness but Bet Ol ME not only understands it but is selling books on it !

[@Southpaw88]

​@nickers7409 fr wtf is he saying😂😂

[@khalilkafieh8099]

Deepak literally doesn’t make any arguments he just keeps adding more meaningless bullshit while making sure to throw in words he doesn’t understand.

[@diegomedina6704]

Ojalá que al que pensó lo del cronómetro lo hayan despedido :v

[@dididogster9994]

how did two biologists start talking about physics.

[@jadenhalstead7290]

Because the one on the left thinks he knows what he is talking about and the one on the right is throwing to show him that he doesn’t have the slightest clue to what he’s talking about

[@rcs300]

it all leads to physics/quantum mechanics

[@nathan-498]

To make money off a form of science that is complex and not well understood, even for scientists.

[@trankt54155]

Richard Feymann said if a physicist says he/she understands quantum mechanics, he/she is fffing with you." And here Chopra tells people quantum this and quantum that.....even quantum consciousness......when no one knows the nature of consciousness.....Chopra claims even an atom has consciousness and that immediately gave Dawkins a big heart attack....

[@trankt54155]

Chopra claims that he knows an atom has consciousness is like claiming he has spoken to God and knows what God has told him......and that was the moment Dawkins concluded that this man is noting but "word salad," "bullshit," and "willful obscure rantism."

[@Senazi08a]

You have a hard job to prove it! Atom do not have a sentience, Atom contribute to make brains, brain have sentience...these words is only for people who can understand how the world realy work, not for people who wish how the world should work

[@johnnybravos9280]

Mr.Moderator after each sentence of Chopra and Dawkins: "Wow, un aplauso por favor" 😁

[@Maximum7077]

Xd

[@ruloruiz3069]

he made a total fool of himself, terrible

[@pedanticvampire8121]

Skip to 11:37 for the start of the debate.

[@amina_aaaaaaa]

THANK YOU!!!!!

[@hihisham]

Thanks so much

[@mahath7]

You the mvp

[@sebastianenriquefernandezv7996]

Thanks!!

[@spotserafin]

Deepak is right about quoting Freeman Dyson. Freeman Dyson.: “It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, MIND IS ALREADY INHERENT IN EVERY ELECTRON, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

[@johnfaulkner5946]

then as Dawkins pointed out, if he believes that, he is wrong. There are many physicists who are, at the end of the day, batshit crazy.

[@johnfaulkner5946]

Sure but the idea that consciousness exists in the universe free of the human brain from which it emerges, is just not compatible with the laws of physics. Some thing you dismiss outright, as supernatural.

[@johnfaulkner5946]

What appears to be clear, and there will be no proof. only more and more evidence, is that consciousness is an emergent property of the neural activity in the brain. That is to say I believe we invent our awareness from moment to moment as a continuum of experiences, as our brains interpret the impulses it receives from our senses, we experience that as what is happening "Now". In a moment that experience is replaced by another, and stored, encoded, as a memory. Now and Then, strung together like pearls on a string... The string is our consciousness. All very cool, but nothing to suggest it can exist outside of the brain.

[@johnfaulkner5946]

There is some evidence, every bit of consciousness we have ever found has been inside the brain of a living being. That's all the evidence we have I think. But there is no reason to ignore it.

[@penizflaccidman3497]

that quote does not imply consciousness of an electron, unless we re-define what we mean by consciousness.... All that Dyson says is: there are complex structures like our brains that become aware of themselves are made of basic elements of Universe and this comes out of the chaos of quantum mechanics... Just look at what we were able to do with computers, but do they have awareness? No they don't. But why? It's because awareness is not just bunch of atoms, they have to be wired properly! For computers we are the driver of this progression, for human beings it was and still is Evolution! We do not know how consciousness comes to be! And Deepak acknowledges this..... and yet he moves on to explain it with atom sentience in the next breath :/ that is where Dawkins calls BS on this....

[@adrilith1989]

Siempre contigo Richard ❤️🌼

[@pabloduran711]

En mi opinión, los que piensan que Chopra ganó el debate o diálogo como lo quieran llamar, simplemente no comprenden los argumentos de Dawkins y al contrario le aplauden a Chopra porque lo que dice él los hace sentir esa sensación de que hay algo más en el universo, eso que la religión ya perdió por completo desde que entendemos sus orígenes tan pobres de evidencias....... en dado caso el mensaje es simple: Dawkins: "No sé qué es la conciencia pero la ciencia es el mejor método para llegar a entenderlo" Chopra: "La respuesta está en la conciencia, pero no sé qué es la conciencia ni tengo evidencia de su espiritualidad" Con esta comparativa es lógico suponer cuál de estas dos ramas va llegar a la respuesta en un futuro... Mi opinión...

[@Minuestis]

Pues la gente se queda más satisfecha con Chopra porque apela a las emociones y no a las pruebas. La gente común, incluso yo mismo a veces, reaccionamos emocionalmente a un suceso y no lo filtramos racionalmente. El verdadero problema consiste en no superar esa etapa.

[@pabloduran711]

Es correcto

[@rubenosorio1169]

Te doy link porque es muy apreciable lo que anotas, si tu suponer tiene tendencia hacia alguno, estarás privando tu capacidad de descubrirlo por ti mismo. Todos llevamos en nuestro propio fuero interno una verdad, hasta que vamos identificando nuevas. Seamos científicos o espiritualistas, es nuestra verdad.

[@Daniel-wr9ql]

@@rubenosorio1169 no hay una verdad personal, cada persona no decide lo que es verdad para ellos. La verdad es objetiva, no subjetiva.

[@RenatusChristoph]

Thanks Mr Dawkins, for your relentless Socratic urge to call out these mumbo-jumbo pseudoscientifical idiots and exposing their claim to knowledge when in fact there is none.

[@briansmith3791]

@Rene Xhristoph: That comment made me laugh. Comparing Dawkins to Socrates? The Greek was famous for saying he knew he didn't know. The Kenyan thinks he knows. Dawkins' arrogance is astonishing. To publicly call a man a liar when the man was telling the truth, to say an eminent physicist is wrong without evidence, to accuse his opponent of "willful obscurantism" is certainly not Socratic, it's the opposite, it's the actions of a closed mind. Read this famous quote from Herbert Spencer and then look again at Dawkins' behaviour in this debate. Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar to all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance, that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

[@RenatusChristoph]

@@briansmith3791 Socrates would surely lose his temper with willful ignorants like Chopra and yourself - as you are inferior to all the interlocutors he faces in Plato's dialogues. None of them are putting forward theories nearly as obscure as this New Age bullshit that Chopra exposes here. "A single cell has consciousness..." "Atoms are sentient..." What is arrogant is the claim to truth (and ignorance for that matter). And that part I'll give you: Dawkins is not willing (as are all the modern scientific faculties) to examine his/their own theories. The theory of evolution is surely open to critique, but neither Dawkins, Chopra, you or any other fanatics are able to carry it out. So yes, Dawkins is arrogant, but at least he does acknowledge about consciousness that “of course, we don’t understand it”; "I don't know" (34:00;48:08). So does Socrates about virtue, justice, etc. If you don’t realize this about the Socratic arrogance then you haven’t read the dialogues well enough. The heart of the Socratic doctrines are not explicit in Plato's ouevre. They must be unlocked by a careful and patient reader. The claim to ignorance is at the very heart of what we call Socratic irony, which is found to be very arrogant by almost all of the interlocutors. After all, Socrates was said to be a philosopher - a lover of wisdom. But the ignorance has an implicit meaning which coerces a interlucutor who is driven by undoubtful, biased and close-minded truth-telling. He is ironic about his ignorance on account of this very purpose, I believe. The kind of irony where one understates and hides the fact that one has investigated a great number of opinions about something. The "Meno" is recommendable to read on this very issue. Read this and the “Theaetetus” and you’ll find a Socrates that knows a lot of things while dumbfounded and ignorant. And in the "Charmides" he even has a critique about whether one would be able to know if one didn’t. Surely, you haven’t read that dialogue, have you, Brian? Why that quote by Spencer? If you hold - as you do - that Chopra speaks the truth about consciousness here, then - surely - there is no need to investigate further into the matter. For the truth of any matter cannot be investigated, if one claims to possess it. You cannot look for something you have already. The other extreme: If one doesn't know anything about the thing one is searching for; then how would one realise it, if one would find it by chance. Therefore; some knowledge is always present; or rather opinions about things. Socrates has them, Dawkins has them, Chopra has them, you and I have them. Some are better then others. Chopra can - granted - express some things I would sympasize with. But he is fucking annoyingly arrogant. Even more so than Dawkins and that's saying a lot. For example at 43:40 he asks, if he can ask Dawkins 'a question'. The question - which contains at least 15 questions and the name dropping of 5 or 6 philosophers - ends at 45:18, where the moderator is forced to cut Chopra off. At 45:43, leaving Dawkins 25 seconds to answer, Chopra interrupts, now willing to 'ask' again, but gets denied by the moderator. That is just the very epitome of arrogant behavior. He is so full of himself.

[@briansmith3791]

@@RenatusChristoph: You are doing exactly what Dawkins did, namely insulting your opponent. Now I'M willfuly ignorant and a fanatic? A fanatical what? And it was the esteemed Physicist Freeman Dyson who said that atoms are sentient, though i wouldn't quite call him a New-Ager; he was 83 when he died earlier this year. The quote by Spencer refers to a closed- mind, obviously. Dawkins' closed-mind, and his inability to grasp that when someone disagrees with him it doesn't mean that person is a liar or stupid. And no, i haven't studied Socrates, and i really have no desire to.There are far too many interesting scientific theories to keep modern man occupied. In my opinion, science, not philosophy, will reveal the truth about the Universe. But i do have enough knowledge of the subjects discussed to understood what both Dawkins and Chopra were saying, when clearly you didn't. If you're put off by the thought that all this is New Age nonsense, then the Professor of Cognitive Science, Donald Hoffman, may help you to understand some of the stuff Chopra was on about. And i'm not a big fan of Chopra, his personality doesn't appeal to me, but at least he acted with some decorum. Dawkins acted like a lout. Chopra a liar, the audience liars. Shocking behaviour.

[@RenatusChristoph]

@@briansmith3791 You are a fanatic for holding that Chopra speaks "the truth" here, Brian. Short and simple. Modern science is born from philosophy, but you need to read philosophy in order to acknowledge that. Now I suggest you go read and take better care of that closed mind of yours. You clearly need to investigate the history of philosophy.

[@RenatusChristoph]

@@briansmith3791 To cut it even shorter: if you are ignorant of philosophy, you are ignorant of science as well.

[@robinghosh8891]

Really a very Great person is Mr. Dawkins, who very expertly proved that Science will continue to make great progress in understanding the world ...in spite of non entity and stupid people trying to dishonour the noble study of Science and the Scientists and misleading the gullible public....We are with you Dawkins Sir....

[@MikkoRantalainen]

Thanks for sharing this whole video. I've previously seen only clips taken out of context and it was nice to finally see the whole discussion.