tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post8387802801100191401..comments2024-03-22T08:04:05.869-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 陳振聰大戰方舟子Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-50079579339065827652011-02-12T10:37:19.158-08:002011-02-12T10:37:19.158-08:00純純男子漢,
//那位方兄第一句就語氣不好,有心揶揄對方一番似乎也算是動機不良,不可取吧?//
...純純男子漢,<br /><br />//那位方兄第一句就語氣不好,有心揶揄對方一番似乎也算是動機不良,不可取吧?//<br /><br />- 也不算太過份吧!W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-46586706962813747632011-02-12T09:49:31.168-08:002011-02-12T09:49:31.168-08:00如果真的講佛法的,那根本不會扯那麼多話題來的.
凡事皆為因緣果報,不究其因,佛像真係被燒左,只能嘆可...如果真的講佛法的,那根本不會扯那麼多話題來的.<br />凡事皆為因緣果報,不究其因,佛像真係被燒左,只能嘆可惜,唯有買過一個;燒不到也只算幸運,之後盡量避免再失火才是上策.<br />之後扯去什麼相對絕對的,只會被他人有機反駁而已.<br />當然,那位方兄第一句就語氣不好,有心揶揄對方一番似乎也算是動機不良,不可取吧?純純男子漢noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-64506535888640385562011-02-11T23:40:15.597-08:002011-02-11T23:40:15.597-08:00shiren,
//如果盲目,自己會不會知道?//
- 盲目的人通常都不意識到自己盲目(除非真的...shiren,<br /><br />//如果盲目,自己會不會知道?//<br /><br />- 盲目的人通常都不意識到自己盲目(除非真的是雙目失明)。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-54432095216706380142011-02-11T17:47:41.225-08:002011-02-11T17:47:41.225-08:00Wong,
“
//對尊敬和佩服的人,我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。//
- 這是人之常情,只...Wong,<br /><br />“<br />//對尊敬和佩服的人,我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。//<br /><br />- 這是人之常情,只要不是太盲目便成了。<br />”<br /><br />是,人都有這傾向。如果盲目,自己會不會知道?shirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465373657627542127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-64819852834471515312011-02-11T12:15:43.608-08:002011-02-11T12:15:43.608-08:00Roger,
//同一位沈浸於宗教氣氛中的講科學的課題,乃是自討苦吃!//
- 的確是晒氣,但不...Roger,<br /><br />//同一位沈浸於宗教氣氛中的講科學的課題,乃是自討苦吃!//<br /><br />- 的確是晒氣,但不表示沒有對錯可言,也不表示大家都是對的。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-66891256275606723892011-02-11T09:18:43.571-08:002011-02-11T09:18:43.571-08:00羅渣加把口:
這二人的對話根本就是各說各話,驢頭不對馬嘴!彼此的語境不同,說了也是白說,side ...羅渣加把口:<br /><br />這二人的對話根本就是各說各話,驢頭不對馬嘴!彼此的語境不同,說了也是白說,side gas!<br /><br />這令我聯想到有一男一女在對話------<br /><br />女:嘩,日落果陣係 magic hour,好浪漫呀!<br /><br />男:車,呢 D 只係睇既人心情唔同,查實日落係一個自然現象,地球根據恆常不變的自轉規律,每分鐘運行...(下刪五千字)<br /><br />女:(怒)我話係浪漫就浪漫啦!你識乜?!<br /><br />男:(頭一仰,不肯示弱)我同你講既係科學!做人都係清醒 D 好!<br /><br />......<br /><br />結果當然係大纜都絞唔埋啦!<br /><br />同一位沈浸於宗教氣氛中的講科學的課題,乃是自討苦吃!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-33798103449642754072011-02-10T23:33:53.702-08:002011-02-10T23:33:53.702-08:00shiren,
//對尊敬和佩服的人,我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。//
- 這是人之常情,只...shiren,<br /><br />//對尊敬和佩服的人,我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。//<br /><br />- 這是人之常情,只要不是太盲目便成了。<br /><br />//有英文但想不到達意的中文,就順手溝入英文算了。請見諒。//<br /><br />- 沒所謂呀!W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-51310051408471138512011-02-10T23:31:01.236-08:002011-02-10T23:31:01.236-08:00Snowdrops,
//I'm relieved to see that there a...Snowdrops,<br /><br />//I'm relieved to see that there are no logical inconsistencies on the points that I've been making,even when Chan has turned out to be Faye, after a ll.//<br /><br />- As far as those points are concerned, there shouldn't be inconsistencies.W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-54345279637218665022011-02-10T19:14:36.118-08:002011-02-10T19:14:36.118-08:00wong網主玩嘢:)
這個例子不說,因我對王菲會怎樣信佛有點成見,雖然我喜歡她的歌。
我從自己身...wong網主玩嘢:)<br /><br />這個例子不說,因我對王菲會怎樣信佛有點成見,雖然我喜歡她的歌。<br /><br />我從自己身上領悟到,人是會因應說話的人在自己心中的地位,把其說話加減份量。第一次發現大人也會錯的時候,有點疑惑。大慨是在同學仔面前,將家裏大人的話當事實來講,但被反駁。到不知第幾次,也要提醒一下自己,小時他們當然是高高在上,但他們是常人呢,你忘了嗎?<br /><br />對尊敬和佩服的人,我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。例如,特別聰明、很多時候被證實有先見之明的高人。每一次他的論點被證明是對的,其可靠程度就不期然被提高。後來,當然是出現矛盾,小的立即捍衛高人的話起來(是在捍衛那話的內容,還是捍衛說者?還是我的信念?),同時猛往另一頭找破綻。如果找不到,被逼接受,高人都會錯!其實我早知沒有人是永遠對的。真是老外說的:「duh!」。這個我很自覺,不時需要提醒自己。隨年月,小的也算是有些進步,但間中還是會fall prey to this.<br /><br />把老媽的話當耳邊風當慣了,她說x是紅的,就會反射性的想:那麽x大概不是紅的。忽然有次聽清楚,x真是紅的啊!又要設立多個check.<br />(我的中英文都沒半桶水,寫這麽多,好玩但頗累,有英文但想不到達意的中文,就順手溝入英文算了。請見諒。)shirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465373657627542127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-47901612690666767072011-02-10T16:32:32.164-08:002011-02-10T16:32:32.164-08:00@Wong and Meshi:
I finally clicked on that secon...@Wong and Meshi: <br /><br />I finally clicked on that second link (I'm quite wary about accessing mainland sites due to previous bad spyware/malware experience), and realised that Wong had wittily substituted Faye for Chan in the Twitter dialogue quoted above. Re-reading all my comments on this thread above, I'm relieved to see that there are no logical inconsistencies on the points that I've been making, even when Chan has turned out to be Faye, after all.* Phew :) <br /><br />(*Of course Faye may not be as blatantly fraudulent in her religious beliefs as Chan -- her case is more about being sincerely (mis)guided? -- but her idea of "absolute truth" being personally experienced is still unfounded in her case as she didn't experience the fire herself and the statue is not hers but in some other building, and she merely read about it just like everyone else, so for her to use this example to attest to the truthfulness of her beliefs is still questionable, though her lack of credibility is a different type from Chan's).Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-59564014523181745152011-02-10T14:20:30.844-08:002011-02-10T14:20:30.844-08:00Snowdrops,
//Oh Wong I meant to thank you also fo...Snowdrops,<br /><br />//Oh Wong I meant to thank you also for setting me straight re: 儒 :)//<br /><br />- No problem.W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-44699756951641457392011-02-10T14:19:43.536-08:002011-02-10T14:19:43.536-08:00William,
//俗世解釋已經由可驗證和合邏輯的角度去分析事件,那麽在之上加一個不可驗證神秘解...William,<br /><br />//俗世解釋已經由可驗證和合邏輯的角度去分析事件,那麽在之上加一個不可驗證神秘解釋其實是多餘。//<br /><br />- 所謂 theistic evolution 就是一個好例子。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-75019219230471889862011-02-10T13:43:19.384-08:002011-02-10T13:43:19.384-08:00@Meshi,
Just to clarify my position even further...@Meshi, <br /><br />Just to clarify my position even further for you: Chan could indeed engage in this debate using his observation about his undamanged prized Buddha statue just like any other person without having to resort to claims about his authority, as that's his prerogative (whether he would get shot down on using such "evidence" during the debate is another matter). My point was that he talked about "Absolute truths" as if he really believes in them, and could access it personally, when he had already been shown to be fraudulent regarding those kind of truth claims. That's the reason why I said his "theological arguments" are inadmissible in a serious theological debate.Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-24109167627172726642011-02-10T13:34:25.105-08:002011-02-10T13:34:25.105-08:00(re-edited to remove embarrassing redundant words!...(re-edited to remove embarrassing redundant words!)<br /><br />@Meshi, <br /><br />If he's meant to be defending his beliefs yet he's already been shown to be fraudulent regarding said beliefs, how can he defend those in a serious debate?<br /><br />"(should we use "theological" in this case?)"<br /><br />Well, it touches on the existence or otherwise of God and one's particular brand of theistic belief, so I would say yes. <br /><br />"Personally I don't feel any difference on my view towards the debate before and after I have realized that it was Faye Wong but not Chan who took part in the debate.....perhaps it's because I am not Faye's fans?"<br /><br />Well, I'm a fan of Faye the singer but apparently even I could not stomach the idea of Faye the Buddhist evangelist (I'm deliberately mixing up my religions here :P), if she holds a line of reasoning similar to what Chan had done above in the quoted passage. <br /><br />(Just to be clear I've not bothered to click on the Twitter link and haven't searched out what Faye had actually said to Fong on this whole matter).Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-71306441830939481192011-02-10T13:31:55.118-08:002011-02-10T13:31:55.118-08:00Oh Wong I meant to thank you also for setting me s...Oh Wong I meant to thank you also for setting me straight re: 儒 :)Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-21849535422620215272011-02-10T13:08:09.064-08:002011-02-10T13:08:09.064-08:00Snowdrops,
//I was wondering simply why Wong post...Snowdrops,<br /><br />//I was wondering simply why Wong posted this debate as if it was a serious theological debate by sincere practitioners on either side (as per my initial reading), when in fact one party has been a demonstrable fraud even when it comes to his own feng shui beliefs. //<br /><br />I don't understand why a feng shui fraud cannot make a serious theological(should we use "theological" in this case?) debate, or why such a debate made by him shouldn't be treated seriously.<br /><br />Personally I don't feel any difference on my view towards the debate before and after I have realized that it was Faye Wong but not Chan who took part in the debate.....perhaps it's because I am not Faye's fans?Meshihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656065273291410573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-72619206399286550712011-02-10T12:13:55.146-08:002011-02-10T12:13:55.146-08:00"但是如果人硬要去說,都可以說成是因為某神秘力量令佛像被放到該角落,或者令佛像較抗火。&q..."但是如果人硬要去說,都可以說成是因為某神秘力量令佛像被放到該角落,或者令佛像較抗火。"<br /><br />Indeed. Some may choose to see serendipity as simply a matter of pure chance; others may take it as a sign from God. <br /><br />"俗世解釋已經由可驗證和合邏輯的角度去分析事件,那麽在之上加一個不可驗證神秘解釋其實是多餘。"<br /><br />I agree. Mythical explanations are a lot of times unnecessary and in fact often present a barrier to finding out the true mechanisms for how something happened. <br /><br />On the other hand, people who have faith are probably not interested in the logical questions of How but on metaphysical questions of Why ("why are we here", "what's the meaning of Life", etc. etc.) So whilst I agree that "有了俗世解釋就夠了,神秘解釋都是一廂情願的幻想吧了。", people with faith perhaps do not mind so much that their beliefs and ideals are indeed "一廂情願的幻想吧了", as their object of truth is slightly different from what the non-religious seek. <br /><br />Therefore a lot of times I feel that the two groups are merely talking at cross purposes at each other. The dangerous thing of course, is to confuse the two, as the Creationists have done.Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-87471367735884395002011-02-10T11:56:54.706-08:002011-02-10T11:56:54.706-08:00"- Perhaps you've mixed up 「儒」and 「懦」.&qu..."- Perhaps you've mixed up 「儒」and 「懦」."<br /><br />Indeed I have! Though my impression of "cowardly" was more influenced by the first word of "dog" -- that Chinese word for dog doesn't give me the English connotations of "doggedness" and valour, but more an impression of a scared little puppy for some strange reason?Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-39735187153199228462011-02-10T11:46:39.517-08:002011-02-10T11:46:39.517-08:00其實任何事情都可以訴諸神佛。那個沒被燒的佛像,如果有CSI一類去研究研究,都會找到一些例如佛像放在沒...其實任何事情都可以訴諸神佛。那個沒被燒的佛像,如果有CSI一類去研究研究,都會找到一些例如佛像放在沒有被火波及的角落,或者佛像的材料較耐熱耐火等等的「俗世」解釋。但是如果人硬要去說,都可以說成是因為某神秘力量令佛像被放到該角落,或者令佛像較抗火。<br /><br />關鍵在於,在「俗世」解釋上添加上「神秘」解釋,其實是一個可有可無的動作。俗世解釋已經由可驗證和合邏輯的角度去分析事件,那麽在之上加一個不可驗證神秘解釋其實是多餘。例如王菲信是佛有神秘力量,他可以說是耶穌發功玩弄佛門弟子,重點在於不可驗證,討論皆為自我堅持的吹水。人如方舟子和我,就會覺得有了俗世解釋就夠了,神秘解釋都是一廂情願的幻想吧了。Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06505437709297528617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-24452146049916601012011-02-10T11:13:55.446-08:002011-02-10T11:13:55.446-08:00Snowdrops,
//"(倒要查查為何"cynical"譯作「犬...Snowdrops,<br /><br />//"(倒要查查為何"cynical"譯作「犬儒」)。"<br />I know right? The Chinese phrase sounds more like "cowardly" than "cynical" per se.//<br /><br />- Perhaps you've mixed up 「儒」and 「懦」.W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-56936712315879545102011-02-10T11:11:35.511-08:002011-02-10T11:11:35.511-08:00文少,
//例如﹕我阿婆拜黃大仙卻認為自己信佛﹐全因黃大仙廟大雄寶殿內有佛像﹔又例如有D明星用道教...文少,<br /><br />//例如﹕我阿婆拜黃大仙卻認為自己信佛﹐全因黃大仙廟大雄寶殿內有佛像﹔又例如有D明星用道教心態去拜四面佛﹐卻以為自己信佛//<br /><br />- 好例子。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-80333297683078872162011-02-10T11:09:38.021-08:002011-02-10T11:09:38.021-08:00Snowdrops,
//But I hope my contributions above ha...Snowdrops,<br /><br />//But I hope my contributions above have actually helped to illustrate the point that one could indeed have a meaningful debate if we simply based it on the ideas communicated rather than on the apparent authority of the speakers concerned//<br /><br />- Absolutely.W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-36892093363755574982011-02-10T10:47:58.010-08:002011-02-10T10:47:58.010-08:00"(倒要查查為何"cynical"譯作「犬儒」)。"
I ..."(倒要查查為何"cynical"譯作「犬儒」)。"<br /><br />I know right? The Chinese phrase sounds more like "cowardly" than "cynical" per se.Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-75840517751346550172011-02-10T10:42:15.506-08:002011-02-10T10:42:15.506-08:00//正是。很多自稱信佛的人其實一點佛理都不懂,只是吃素念經拜佛像而已。 //
原來我之前get唔到你...//正是。很多自稱信佛的人其實一點佛理都不懂,只是吃素念經拜佛像而已。 //<br />原來我之前get唔到你寫乜添...哈哈<br />我認為呢個topic是可以深化討論的﹐你甚至可以另寫一文來解說一下(笑)<br />我覺得有此現象﹐一方面係因為儒釋道合一的歷史造成的﹐另一方面則緣於漢傳佛教的傳教理念<br />(1)儒釋道合一後﹐道教教義溝入大量佛教人物同宇宙觀﹐而當時無普及教育﹐民眾教育水平較低﹐民間信仰將誤將道教教義當為佛學道理。<br />例如﹕我阿婆拜黃大仙卻認為自己信佛﹐全因黃大仙廟大雄寶殿內有佛像﹔又例如有D明星用道教心態去拜四面佛﹐卻以為自己信佛<br />(2)佛教傳入中土後﹐自稱為大乘而要普渡眾生﹐但佛門中人深知各人悟性不同﹐為用佛理導人向善﹐於是衍生出一D簡易而易做佛理﹐相對較少講一D儀式的背後意義﹐例如說“食齋可積善德”﹑淨土宗主張“念阿彌陀佛可死後往生到極樂國土”等等。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-45457800152973236442011-02-10T10:40:39.928-08:002011-02-10T10:40:39.928-08:00"Snowdrops,
It looks like I was a bit too in..."Snowdrops,<br /><br />It looks like I was a bit too indirect this time.<br />2/10/2011 7:59 上午"<br /><br />Yes, serve me right for not clicking on the link first before responding! But I hope my contributions above have actually helped to illustrate the point that one could indeed have a meaningful debate if we simply based it on the ideas communicated rather than on the apparent authority of the speakers concerned (and thus it is just as pointless to parade one's real qualifications a la Shen as it is to parade one's false qualifications a la Chan).Snowdropshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962700356638572864noreply@blogger.com