University diploma scandal in Jinan
4 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Recent Comments
Hong Kong Blogs
-
-
Follow up to Chinese Medicine post11 hours ago
-
Hong Kong remembers11 hours ago
-
aloha aloha13 hours ago
-
Eye | Land | View14 hours ago
-
HKPO flash mob, Ravel's Bolero.17 hours ago
-
Judge puts gods on trial1 day ago
-
Hong Kong Summer Jazz Festival1 day ago
-
Dribs and drabs 31 day ago
-
Where are the Andes?1 day ago
-
c.1895 Wanchai1 day ago
-
Balls of Fury2 days ago
-
Or Pineapple Bun Break?2 days ago
-
Spelling mistake2 days ago
-
Currency Changes? Old Hands For Hire!3 days ago
-
That’s More Like It!4 days ago
-
Kai Tak6 days ago
-
How not to eat pepper crab2 weeks ago
-
Tanks A Lot2 weeks ago
-
WHO ARE YOU DOING?4 weeks ago
-
Conclusion1 month ago
-
Hegemony of the developers, cont’d2 months ago
-
Cold at Chinese New Year?4 months ago
-
Pitch Yr Culture6 months ago
-
Bye Bye…10 months ago
Walking in Hong Kong
Rest of the World
Films & Books
Cryptic Crosswords
Labels
- Little Britain (241)
- Language Use and Abuse (206)
- Hong Kong Theatrics (194)
- Photo Captions (186)
- Sport (176)
- Films (138)
- US and A (124)
- Music (107)
- Hong Kong Government (106)
- TV (100)
- PRC (96)
- Education (79)
- F'n'B (75)
- Driving (68)
- SCMP (60)
- Legal/Judicial Industry (54)
- CS Lewis (47)
- Sayings (45)
- Hong Kong Jockey Club (41)
- Spain (36)
- Australia (35)
- Christianity (35)
- Journalism Industry (35)
- Useless Quangos (32)
- Ads (31)
- Nazis (31)
- World War II (30)
- ICAC (28)
- Superstition (28)
- Book Reviews (27)
- Hotties (27)
- Sun Hung Kai (27)
- Art/Fashion (25)
- Visitors (24)
- Jews (20)
- Lily Chiang Lai Lei (20)
- Homosexuality (19)
- Indians (19)
- New Zealand (17)
- Barack Obama (16)
- David M Webb (16)
- Li Ka Shing (16)
- Chesterton (15)
- Palins (14)
- Tiger Woods (13)
- Walking in Hong Kong (13)
- CY Leung (12)
- Clive James (12)
- Macau (11)
- Tolkien (11)
- Byron (10)
- Fawlty Towers (9)
- Israel (9)
- Parenting Tips (9)
- Sham Shui Po Boy (9)
- Crime Writers (8)
- Patriotism (8)
- Powell and Pressburger (8)
- Hong Kong Sinfonietta (7)
- Nadezhda Mandelstam (7)
- Harry Lee Kuan Yew (6)
- John Hung (6)
- Jokes (6)
- Lion Feuchtwanger (6)
- Primo Levi (6)
- Rafael Hui (6)
- Amina Bokhary (5)
- Bruce Lee (5)
- Ingmar Bergman (5)
- Nancy Kissel (5)
- James Billington (4)
- Madasahattir Mohamad (4)
- Thomas Sowell (4)
- Diva Noddle (3)
Search
About Me
Subscribe Now: text
Statcounter
BlogCatalog
Google Analytics
19 comments:
A very slightly veiled ad hominem smear, surely, Ulie, old chap?
Of course - I don't care for the Fellow.
Now, Henri Bergson - there's an evolutionist for you.
I don't have much time for that alleged Jesus guy, but I don't insult his alleged ancestors.
There's more evidence for Jeshua/Joshua/Jesus of Nazareth than for many other people living 2,000 years ago. His claims todivinity have always been argued over - not least by other historical characters of his day, such as Pontius Pilate - but not his existence.
I think you could find quite a lot of "evidence" for the Easter Bunny, if you looked in the right place. After all, his exploits have been recorded in many books, not to mention movies, videos and T-shirts.
Ah, you were joking all along. Silly me - should have seen the signs.
You traduce Dawkins. He has never ruled out the possibility of a deity existing any more than he has ever referred to evolution as anything more than a theory.
Ulie, aha! The old "you are joking" argument, or rather non-argument. Just because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny doesn't mean you should pour scorn on those who do.
My purpose in the original post was to point out that while Darwinian evolutionism is a theory - thank you, Nonnie - and the existence of a God is beyond the realm of evidence, Dawkins's ancestry is in the realm of facts and corroboration. Even if one doesn't get that impression from his own unwonted equivocation.
Foamie, of far greater interest to your fan club - many of whom use this site for their surrogate Fumierfix - are you open for business again? I added you to the blogroll for the Nth time, even 'though potential vistors to your site are confronted with a "Mind the Dirty Dog" warning and then, upon successful negotiation of that barrier, garner a measly return of one solitary post. You are such a tease.
I _had_ heard that Fumier was coming back.
I think you will find that evolution by natural selection is a fact.
Anyone who fails to recognise the overwhelming evidence for it and still call it a "theory" is living in some sort of make believe world with the Easter Bunny. Either it is a fact or life was created by a great big magician living in the sky - take your pick.
The point Dawkins was making was that he can no more disprove the existence of God than he can disprove the existence of a hairy yeti living in the centre of the sun. It could be there but you'd be an idiot to believe so.
How humans and all other life forms came to be as they are today is not a mystery. Darwin explained it clearly and simply. The fact that some people choose not to believe it, still call it a theory or choose to believe in a magician who has power over all the laws of physics and the entire universe, is a detriment to the progress of humanity. The sooner we put all this god and Jesus bollocks in the bin the better.
French philosopher Henri Bergson's stance on the relationship between religion and science is interesting. (He and his contemporaries, writing 100 years ago, also had interesting things to say about the relative roles of logic and intuition, which are also of relevance today).
Bergson wrote in Creative Evolution: "Apart from the question to what extent the theory of evolution describes the facts and to what extent it symbolizes them, there is nothing in it that is irreconcilable with the doctrines it has claimed to replace, even with that of special creations, to which it is usually opposed."
"there is nothing in it that is irreconcilable with the doctrines it has claimed to replace."
He has this the wrong way around. In fact, there is nothing in the notion of God that is irreconcilable, not evolution. Hence you can squeeze a belief in God into anything (because God can supposedly do anything, be anything etc etc, none of which is possible). Whatever science proves, those who believe in God will squeeze their beliefs into it.
This is more commonly known as the "God of the gaps". Believers fill the gaps in science with "God". Any gap in scientific knowledge is immediately pounced on by believers.
Science continues to find answers. How much time and effort is being wasted and how much progress cast aside whilst people keep throwing God into the equation of life?
Science has found many answers and I look forward to the day when the magician in the sky is finally put into the Big Book of Children's Fairytales.
Sorry - that last comment was me, Mr T.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/easter-'celebrates-human-victory-over-aliens'-201204055095/
I rest my case.
I'd be worried about you, Foamie, if I didn't know what natural selection were capable of producing.
As an atheist and a historian, might I say that the situation with regard to the so-called Son of God or Son of Man is clear? That there once existed a Jew by the name of Yeshua is as certain as the fact that the Buddha existed. Tacitus specifically refers to his execution, and Josephus writes of James the brother of Jesus the Christ. That Christ is of course a mythological being into whom Yeshua was turned by his followers and others with over-active imaginations.
Well put. For a Christian, of course, the story of Jesus Christ is simply a true myth.
Post a Comment