iBeta 愛北大論壇

標題: 最近公車上的廣告甚麼法王開頂的 [列印本頁]

作者: sigma19 時間: 2013-1-24 17:13
標題: 最近公車上的廣告甚麼法王開頂的
本帖最後由 sigma19 於 2013-1-24 17:25 編輯

我搜尋了一下網路，這種廣告難道沒有高度爭議性嗎？
那些MRI的照片，確定是真實的嗎？怎麼看都像是有問題的MRI影片.

http://pnn.pts.org.tw/main/?p=52111 <= 相關文章

我本人是甚麼宗教都沒有涉入啦...

總覺得這種廣告，有很濃厚的詐騙味。

另外請問：
這些廣告在公開前需要經過特定單位審查嗎？

經過網路搜尋照片上的人似乎叫吳文投是台灣人
目前被中國大陸通緝中?????

作者: 雅麗卡 時間: 2013-1-24 17:21
這種圖片,不懂修圖的也能修出來吧
連去背都省了

作者: 阿岳 時間: 2013-1-24 18:54
啊不就是臺灣話說的『逃殼五康』

作者: Fujihara 時間: 2013-1-24 19:05
我直覺反應：腦袋開這麼大洞，應該是受到強烈撞擊而凹陷吧
如果說宗教開頂，真是讓人害怕

另外，廣告的部份在公開時基本上都不需經過審查，除非有人去檢舉不實廣告，相關單位才會介入
所以，還是建議這方面的廣告還是謹慎看待！！！

宗教，主要應該都是修養於心性與良善待人吧，開頂，又不是要練什麼絕世武功!

作者: sigma19 時間: 2013-1-24 19:41
本帖最後由 sigma19 於 2013-1-24 19:42 編輯

Fujihara 發表於 2013-1-24 19:05
2 T! i3 ^8 p$ V5 z# u3 M* c我直覺反應：腦袋開這麼大洞，應該是受到強烈撞擊而凹陷吧
/ e+ h/ m8 m1 A, Q9 W$ h1 b如果說宗教開頂，真是讓人害怕

我無法對宗教這塊做出評論

但是我直覺 "有需要大幅廣告登公車嗎?"

然後他證照一大堆獲獎一大堆是怎樣 @_@ 要上104應徵嗎? 還是要選立委

作者: johnshuetw 時間: 2013-1-24 20:15
開頂算什麼?若能修到無眼耳鼻舌身，還能活,那才叫SUPER.

作者: 凡夫俗子 時間: 2013-1-24 20:35
仁波切（仁波且）屬藏傳的密宗佛教，意即活佛，我們不信祂的人，很難去理解其中原委，就像有人對耶穌復活，也是將信將疑。台灣有充份的宗教自由，只要不作姦犯科，由他去吧！

作者: sigma19 時間: 2013-1-25 09:37
本帖最後由 sigma19 於 2013-1-25 09:39 編輯

凡夫俗子發表於 2013-1-24 20:35
3 G8 M0 s/ H' p6 S仁波切（仁波且）屬藏傳的密宗佛教，意即活佛，我們不信祂的人，很難去理解其中原委，就像有人對耶穌復活， ...

我只是對MRI淪為法王的驗證工具感到悲哀...

原本科學與宗教...是背對背走的..

這邊指的是概念上喔沒有特定宗教

Piety 與 Rationalism 是背道而馳的.

作者: yljimmy 時間: 2013-1-25 10:20
支持樓上的看法

說真的, 如果宗教還要靠科學來驗證... 那不就表示神的上面還有某種定律在管著

那, 等於承認神靈由物理原理所規範

這... 違反很多宗教的教義吧 ...

作者: 凡夫俗子 時間: 2013-1-25 10:26

sigma19 發表於 2013-1-25 09:37
% j f8 t8 [1 g9 b4 D6 a! B0 I我只是對MRI淪為法王的驗證工具感到悲哀...
7 m" M: l, O' c! C3 J+ I U2 G) _% f
原本科學與宗教...是背對背走的..

他用MRI來驗證他的信仰，自以為會對一些人起一定程度的說服力。宋七力的案例記得嗎？不是也有人瘋狂相信？不知道MRI的發明人怎麼想，說不定很高興呢？

社會上光怪陸離的事情太多了，尤其是宗教的故事，由他去吧！怕的是騙財騙色而已，現階段你（政府）又能如何？何況相信此事真有的人也是有的。

法輪功在大陸被禁而在海外華人區發展的的情形，前車可鑑。

公車廣告只是載具媒體，只要不是禁止事項，它不能主觀取捨。

作者: carl0529 時間: 2013-1-25 10:37
我看得也霧煞煞。居然還放上X光照顯示頭頂上有開洞.....

作者: 凡夫俗子 時間: 2013-1-25 10:40

yljimmy 發表於 2013-1-25 10:20
6 t n$ e( X# }支持樓上的看法- j# ?3 V2 r5 ^$ q1 c, d2 c
/ [, u' I/ s, m/ S/ c" F( B
說真的, 如果宗教還要靠科學來驗證... 那不就表示神的上面還有某種定律在管著

佛教講究「方便法門」，祂用你最能接受的方式傳教，因人而異。我們未深入經藏，不相信就不要信，也毋需批評。展現包容心吧！

作者: limingche 時間: 2013-1-25 10:52
這種...很多人信喔! 宋七力信徒不也一堆,連分身照片都信,
還有什麼大官的夫人也很愛算命..

作者: sigma19 時間: 2013-1-25 11:03
本帖最後由 sigma19 於 2013-1-25 11:16 編輯

凡夫俗子發表於 2013-1-25 10:40 / f" |) P( I( G7 i4 G& j1 f
佛教講究「方便法門」，祂用你最能接受的方式傳教，因人而異。我們未深入經藏，不相信就不要信，也毋需批 ...

只是開玩笑的假設:

有沒有可能引發台灣的醫院自費MRI腦部掃描案件增加?
家長想要鑑定一下自家小孩是不是聖人法王或是腦殼有沒有洞，頂葉有沒有缺損。

MRI間接代表了這家醫院或研究機構的實力，其建置營運費用門檻都很高。
這或許是另類的迷信(迷信MRI穿透人體還可以全彩的能力)
我真的沒辦法接受MRI被拿來這樣用 orz

就好像 CPU被翻過來拿來當劍山插花，然後我還不知道花是真的還是假的一樣...

作者: 凡夫俗子 時間: 2013-1-25 11:43

sigma19 發表於 2013-1-25 11:03
( H" z4 O# u: V9 ~只是開玩笑的假設:% K0 ~, v# ?7 V8 Z5 }2 I2 I
" I, e4 A" S% e- ~- ]; {7 g
有沒有可能引發台灣的醫院自費MRI腦部掃描案件增加?

也許這張照片不是台灣照的，MRI在那兒被閒置很久了！

也許照片不是本尊的。（嗯！這樣就有詐術了！）

也許照片經過變造。（嗯！這樣也有詐術！）

反正由他去了，除非能證明真有詐術，而且是受害者，才能怎麼樣，不然就無罪推論吧！

作者: sapling 時間: 2013-1-25 11:49
本帖最後由 sapling 於 2013-1-25 12:39 編輯

01上已經有人討論過, 原來是賣什麼靈骨塔的

http://www.mobile01.com/topicdet ... f&last=41410624

作者: dingding 時間: 2013-1-26 17:12
腦殘...........應該可以申請殘障手冊

作者: sigma19 時間: 2013-1-26 17:56
本帖最後由 sigma19 於 2013-1-26 18:00 編輯

dingding 發表於 2013-1-26 17:12
8 C3 W* Q+ X5 [8 T# ]0 b腦殘...........應該可以申請殘障手冊

本草綱目紀載 : 腦殘無藥醫

但是回到現實面

上述狀況應該可以申請禁治產

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
為避免誤人子弟，這邊放上說明

原句如下:
“紀稱望龍光，知古劍；覘寶氣，辨明珠。故萍實商羊非天明莫洞。厥後博物稱華，辨字稱康，析寶玉稱倚頓，亦僅僅晨星耳。”

被改為:
"紀稱望龍光，知古劍；覘寶氣，辨明珠。故腦殘者無藥醫也莫洞。厥後博物稱華，辨字稱康，析寶玉稱倚頓，亦僅僅晨星耳。"

作者: 凡夫俗子 時間: 2013-1-26 18:51

sigma19 發表於 2013-1-26 17:56
* m% S7 D! w: K$ I+ |2 O本草綱目紀載 : 腦殘無藥醫

縱觀各位大大的高論，如果是買腦殘的仁波切加持過的靈骨塔位，我一點也不驚奇。

不是也有人找籠鳥卜卦嗎？

還是那句話，由他去吧！

作者: phantom 時間: 2013-1-26 20:31
Albert Einstein on:Religion and Science
The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

資料引自http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Science and Religion
This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
1.
During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.
One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.
It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.
There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way.
If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.
What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone cannot do that.
If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions.
A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet the danger--means in the field of national and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general. Such efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds.
________________________________________
II.
It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.
At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

作者: cmonkey 時間: 2013-1-27 00:05
本帖最後由 cmonkey 於 2013-1-27 00:10 編輯

那個MRI照，比較像是頭頂處出現一個黑色陰影遮掩住。
以MRI的原理，是發出電磁波打進人體，讓人體裡面的氫原子產生磁場而發出磁場變化，再由機器感應運算出來。
其實在頭上貼一個可以阻擋電磁波的金屬物比如說鋁箔片，就可以弄出這樣的影象出來了。不需要使用電腦合成。

有個醫事放射師就在他自己的bolg提到過「磁化率假影」這個名詞。

作者: 紫薇媽咪 時間: 2013-1-27 00:21
本帖最後由紫薇媽咪於 2013-1-27 00:25 編輯

ㄎㄎㄎ
光是要驗証真偽，不就常冒犯教義了嗎?
若要求證、辯論正偽，人類豈可以下犯上?
我在印度看了好多外國人士朝聖取經…(什麼宗教都有)
不管任何宗教，
很多信仰是追求真理吧?
但當你看到真實的一面時，心情真是頓時…

任何宗教信仰
最好多思考、多找人討論、聽聽不同人的議建
別迷信、別沉淪、別一腳陷入，無法自拔。

宗教信仰是否能幫到人，還是害到人、或一個家庭，可要理性分辨。

PS:開頂…是否跟藏傳佛教的「波瓦法」一樣呢?如果是，我在17歲那年就已練過，被西藏轉世活佛認定已練成。但…實在覺得還是跟凡人無異，哈哈

歡迎光臨 iBeta 愛北大論壇 (https://forum.ibeta.tw/)