[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 95 KB, 483x194, Screen Shot 2013-11-11 at 7.47.06 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4263141 No.4263141 [Reply] [Original]

So /lit/,

Richard Dawkins or Deepak Chopra?

>> No.4263147

>>4263141
Deechard Dawpra

>> No.4263151

>>4263141

both are annoying, but Richard is correct and more honest.

>> No.4263167

Dawkins is a scientist. Chopra is a charlatan.

>> No.4263259

PUSSY HAD ME DEAD
MIGHT CALL TUPAC OVER

>> No.4263273

>this video is not available in your country

>> No.4263279

>>4263141
Oh my god I forgot the link. That was the point of the whole thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4c_CrQzUGw

>> No.4263375

Chopra is a charlatan. Dawkins is autistic and narrow-minded.

Both are retards.

>> No.4263579

Chopra scores more pussy in a regular basis. I'll go with his point of view.

>> No.4263612

Neither,
and in the end, there are more interesting things to spend your time thinking about than the great internet flamewar between theism and atheism. Look up the arguments for and against, make up your own mind, then come and join us, for we have much to do and our time on this earth is short.

>> No.4263619

Dawkins may be right but I feel like I'd get more out of Deepak, because even though I'm agnostic I am kind of spiritual and that whole thing is very interesting to me. Also Dawkins to me seems like just a pain to be around

>> No.4263633

>>4263279
I'm gonna give this a go

>> No.4263645
File: 107 KB, 711x743, 1377506875472.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4263645

Chopra is a fraud and snake oil salesman, I'll go with Dawkins.

>muh received wisdom that Dawkins is "rude"
>muh moderate position

>> No.4263652

The only reason to choose Chopra would be to annoy Fedoras, so Chopra.

>> No.4263674

Eh I find Dawkins to be a distasteful sort of leader of Atheism . He lets the Fedoras think it is ok to be snooty and agitators. Just watch some of his speeches. The crowd chuckles at everything he says and he does along with them or is approving of it.

>> No.4263699

>>4263279
I think the problem is the format itself. The debated question forces a yes or no answer, Dawkins is forced to make a distinction between universe itself and "inside" the universe.
I would side with Dawkins because what I understand from his side is that the fact that objects that are part of the universe develop purpose doesn't mean that the universe as a whole has a purpose and that it's fine-tuned for it but rather that purpose is a possibility of the universe.
That's why the debate format usually do not work well with such broad questions: the question posed resists to nuanced positions.
This questions are better treated, I think, in the conversational format of a round table, rather than a format of necessarily opposing views

>> No.4263736

Both enormous cunts, but Dawkins has at least made himself useful in some way while Chopra brings nothing but curry flavoured platitudes to the table.

I pick the angry albatross.

>> No.4264635

Dat false dilemma

"Murderer or thief?"

Into the waste bin it goes

>> No.4265070
File: 53 KB, 640x430, tmp_2QbISl1099855626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4265070

>>4263141

>pic related