Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception

Colbert and Tyson

Our Origins, by Sagan

Richard Dawkins Interviews Deepak Chopra.

From Pharyngula.

2/9/2012 Edit: This blog post is relevant to this discussion...

The Sagan Series and the Feynman Series

Deepak Chopra is so full of shit.

Link at Pharyngula.

PZ Myers says it clearly and to the point, as usual...

PZ Myers reviews Deepak Chopra reviewing Richard Dawkins

"One doesn't ask for advanced genetics in a primer for young adults, but one does ask that the writer know his field before adopting a tone of authority." –Deepak Chopra

That's rich coming from a quantum quack who is demonstrably deluded about medicine, biology, evolution, physics, chemistry, and the entirety of science, yet manages to pretend to be an authority every day. – PZ Myers

The seventh billion economist.com/video

Population growth...

Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie

Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Erosion of Progress by Religions

Today it's religion, tomorrow it's fable...

Albert Einstein Misquoted

So theists in their quest to convert the world to religion, realize that the biggest obstacle standing in their way is science. So their spin doctors do a few things, first they try to explain their position allegorically using the very physics that refute it, then they cry that their holy book is just metaphor for the very things that scientific knowledge uncovers (like 7 days being 250 million years) and when that doesn't work, they lie that our greatest scientific thinkers were in fact theists themselves.

Dear Theists, thank you for so blatantly making yourselves look blind, ignorant, and untrustworthy. There's no need for outspoken Atheists, you're doing a stand-up job at undermining yourselves.

There are so many things wrong with the logic being presented here I'm just going to quote a fellow atheist who has already commented on the video:

If the definition of cold is 'the absence of heat', then clearly cold objects and regions do exist, the same with dark ones. If you ask if Y exists, define Y as a state of absence of X and then prove some things exist in a state of absence of X, you have proven Y exists. What sort of terrible lack of reasoning are you using when you can be refuted merely with you own definitions? Also, saying that there are places without God refutes the quality of omnipresence, which most western religions are rather attached to.

Or as I thought immediately after watching it, if you're going to use reason, logic and science to swindle people into believing in the existence of a god, then unfortunately using a very well documented Pantheist/Atheist like Albert Einstein will surely make that a very ridiculous argument indeed.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp 

More powerful then any other collective idea in history, and the vast majority of people either don't know about it, choose to ignore it, or just don't get it.

God or nothing

Darwin's sound of Science

Think about it...

Will it bring happiness?

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception