Dear Mods my above mail is missing in the Discussions. Can you help? On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:40 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
> FF, you have challenged Darwin's theory of evolution. May you enlighten me > with YOUR theory? How did man come to be? Was this universe put in place, > as it is , or has it evolved over billions of years? > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:39 AM, 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 >> > > > > > > them to label Queens of desert as eunuchs. Just look at the >> list of >> > > > > > > eunuchs prepared by these racist morons & you will be proud to >> be >> > > > > > > Queen of desrt -- Mozes, Hegel, Hitler, Alexander, Hanuman (a >> monkey >> > > > > > > headed God from Hindu mythology)... almost anyone who doesn't >> want to >> > > > > > > deviate from TRUTH gets labeld as eunuch by these mediocre >> racists. >> > > > > > > Apart from cowardice & inefficiency, there is nothing in the >> genes of >> > > > > > > these racists. These are the stupid talkative extroverts who >> were >> > > > > > > running hither & thither when Hitler's battletanks were >> chasing them. >> > > > > > > These are the great soldiers who ditched Alexander for gaining >> favours >> > > > > > > from Dariyas. >> > >> > > > > > > Fromhttp://samirsp.blogspot.com-Hidequotedtext- >> > >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> > >
