Unfortunately, when agnostics say "I don't know...", what they really mean is "nobody can know". It sounds so cute when agnostics, with admirable certitude, assume everyone else to be as ignorant as they themselves are.
On May 17, 8:52 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hear hear, Vam! > > While he's at it, I'd like FF to define what exactly he understands by > "agnostics." He states: "When agnostics reject the existence of > "Absolute Truth", they do > so without knowing anything about that term." This, it seems to me, is > a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to adopt an agnostic > position on something. Agnosticism does not "reject the existence of > 'Absolute Truth'." Instead, it takes the position: I have not > encountered a definition or explanation of "Absolute Truth" (whatever > that may be) which I find convincing or coherent. The basic view of > the agnostic is - I don't know, but I AM open to persuasion ... > > Francis > > On 17 Mai, 16:17, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps, since FF seems intent on garnering subscribers to Absolute > > Truth and God, which can explain all events in the system, our first > > questions to him might be : > > > What is the Absolute Truth ? What or Who is God ? A para or two, in > > terms we could appreciate, without going out of " line with logic, > > reason or common sense." > > > On May 17, 4:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Okay now we seem to have here a thesist with Fidds syndrome(applogise > > > to you Fidds, but you know what I mean), whihc in itself is rather > > > strange and marveolouse. > > > > I hope the general slagging off has now finiished, so let me be the > > > first to say, FF welcome to ME. > > > > Now what's the point of this thread, what is it that you wish to > > > discuss? Coz honeslty I'm with Slippy here, this just looks like a > > > disjointed stream of data to me, can you help us to clarify it? > > > > On 17 May, 11:39, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On May 16, 7:26 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> The ball of > > > > elaboration is in your court, this is your thread. You > > > > > are making broad statements without saying much. > > > > > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have anchored > > > > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you consider > > > > > truths. > > > > > I have already mentioned that there is nothing personal about TRUTH & > > > > that is what the term "Absolute Truth" means. It is absolute in every > > > > respect. It neither depends upon my personal beliefs nor upon the > > > > collective opinion of masses. For example, a herd of zombies can go on > > > > shouting that Evolution Theory is a scientific theory. But only your > > > > strong urge to unearth the Truth will tell you that there is no > > > > evidence whatsoever to prove the absurd claims made in that silly > > > > theory. This also means that you can't project something unreasonable > > > > as Absolute Truth. Anything that is not in line with logic, reason or > > > > common sense will NOT be recognized as Absolute Truth. Having a strong > > > > scientific temper is minimum requirement to understand Absolute Truth. > > > > So, agnostic should NOT be under the impression that they are the > > > > whole & sole defenders of scientific temper. What you know in the > > > > field of tangible science is already known to today's gnostics. In > > > > addition, gnostics know something which appears to be of abstract > > > > nature to many agnostics. > > > > > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be explored > > > > > individually. > > > > > > I don't see the thread going anywhere other than reaching levels of > > > > > redundancy without resolution. > > > > > When agnostics reject the existence of "Absolute Truth", they do > > > > so without knowing anything about that term. How can you reject > > > > something about which you know nothing ? It is this "Absolute Truth" > > > > which can throw light upon the seemingly inexplicable force behind > > > > uncertainties around us. But your urge to deny the existence of God > > > > simply prompts you to reject the very existence of any such > > > > inexplicable force. Your approach Is very much in line with the > > > > mindset of determinists. In that case you cannot reject Hegel's > > > > statement that History develops as per the logical plan. So, should I > > > > assume that you accept Hegel's views regarding development of > > > > history ? > > > > > > I'm with Albert Einstein below. > > > > > > Borrowed FROM: > > > > > Molly Brogan Thread May 26, 2008 > > > > > > According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated > > > > > by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and > > > > > functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of > > > > > change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused > > > > > and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato, > > > > > Republic) > > > > > It is obvious that any philosophy must be capable of explaining > > > > ALL the events that take place in the system in which we exist. > > > > > > To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally > > > > > ordered system that is God. > > > > > > To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated > > > > > system in which everything is contained. > > > > > > To Einstein, “the truth of > > > > > the Universe is human truth.” > > > > > > Read More @ > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/8531f4e... > > > > > > On May 16, 6:37 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> Thank You! > > > > > > > > I understand it all very well and did not discredit anything. > > > > > > > > I simply recognized a multi-faceted post which needs > > > > > > > clarification on > > > > > > > some specifics. > > > > > > > Only a multi-faceted post can clearly highlight the wholistic > > > > > > approach.> Truth IS that Truth is highly subjective even in the > > > > > > sense of > > > > > > > absolutism, somewhat like absolute "fact". > > > > > > > Calling Truth as subjective matter is part of empiricism. Our > > > > > > perception about Reality can be quite different from Absolute Truth. > > > > > > That doesn't mean Absolute Truth does not exist.> The Wow really > > > > > > belongs as a pertinence to your own opening thread > > > > > > > which covers several issues. > > > > > > > All the isues covered in that post are linked to each other. You > > > > > > cannot separate one from the other.> We've covered the truth issue > > > > > > here many times before so you might > > > > > > > consider searching the Minds Eye archives. > > > > > > > The problem with agnostics is that they cannot see anything beyond > > > > > > public opinion or collective opinion. Truth can be (& most of the > > > > > > times it is) different from collective opinion. > > > > > > > > Have a good e-space night! > > > > > > > Now again the e-space illusion has come into picture. We are from > > > > > > different time zones. What is night for you is a day for me in > > > > > > India... > > > > > > > > On May 15, 8:53 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wow ! Discrediting anything that you do not understand is a > > > > > > > > typical > > > > > > > > agnostic position. Your comment, Slip Disc, is quite in line > > > > > > > > with that > > > > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 4:58 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> You > > > > > > > > are presenting layers upon layers upon layers of thread topic > > > > > > > > > here; kinda like sporadic inputs generated by a frenetic > > > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > Break it down and address a single aspect of the rant so we > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > respond specifically to a individual point. > > > > > > > > > > I would have to suggest that you start with your personal > > > > > > > > > understanding of what "Truth" is. > > > > > > > > > There is nothing personal about "TRUTH". That's what the term > > > > > > > > "Absolute Truth" means. It is ABSOLUTE in every respect....>You > > > > > > > > obviously are already biased in the sense of what truth is and > > > > > > > > further anchor your understanding in > > > > > > > > > theistic principles which don't hold much water other than > > > > > > > > > that of a > > > > > > > > > fanaticism towards another fantasy belief system out of the > > > > > > > > > hundreds > > > > > > > > > of deity fantasies out there. > > > > > > > > > What is the basis for your assumption that my understanding > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > TRUTH is anchored in theistic principles ? Are you sure that > > > > > > > > you are > > > > > > > > not mixing-up theistic principles with the procedures of some > > > > > > > > organised religions like western theistic religions (such as > > > > > > > > Cristianity, Judaism or Islam) ? > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you try getting with reality? > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 12:06 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is with reference to Hollywood film "Adventures > > > > > > > > > > of Priscila, > > > > > > > > > > Queen of Desert". > > > > > > > > > > While explaining the system around us, Hegel used the > > > > > > > > > > terms "Real > > > > > > > > > > Reality" & "Apparent Reality". By analyzing Hegel's opinion > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > history develops as per the logical plan, we can say, > > > > > > > > > > "Hegel had > > > > > > > > > > mistaken apparent reality for real reality". What he called > > > > > > > > > > as real > > > > > > > > > > reality was actually the determinists' zone. Though he > > > > > > > > > > claimed to have > > > > > > > > > > traversed the entire field, it is quite clear that Hegel > > > > > > > > > > could not see > > > > > > > > > > the endpoint of the desert shown in the abovementioned > > > > > > > > > > Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > film. > > > > > > > > > > "The new world order" system (a combination of Snob > > > > > > > > > > society & > > > > > > > > > > Republic society) which is in place for the last 44 years, > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > precisely the same nonscientific racist nonsense which was > > > > > > > > > > overthrown > > > > > > > > > > by Europe during Age of Reason. (Here, the term racism > > > > > > > > > > means a nexus > > > > > > > > > > between forward racism upper cocks & reverse racism > > > > > > > > > > uppercocks.) > > > > > > > > > > Racists' urge to project themselves as limit of manliness, > > > > > > > > > > prompts- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
