I repeat my questions : What is the Absolute Truth, which you believe we should subscribe to ? What or Who is God, that you claim is the originator or creator of this universe ?
Just a para or two, of a few lines each, in terms and words we could understand. Rhetorics would not lead us to a substantial and meaningful discussion. I am interested in your answers but only over the next 12 hours or so. Thereafter, I'll be off into the mountains. On May 18, 10:44 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > I repeat the reply I gave to frantheman. > 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 that everyone else is as ignorant as they > themselves are. > > On May 18, 2:11 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > FF, hahahh my friend of coures there exists someting about which > > Agnostics no nothing. Plenty exists about which Agnostics freely hold > > up their hands an procvlaim, 'I simply cannotn comment on that as I > > know nothing about it'. After the realisation that they posses a lack > > of knowledge is the default for Agnostisism.. > > > So I'll ask again, what is the point of this thread. You have said > > that you have no ill feelings towards Slip, and yet both your tone and > > the words you choose to use, say another thing entirly. > > > As to your disjionted data stream, again if a person claims not to > > make much sense of what you say, then wouldn't the friendly thing be > > to clarify your points? > > > I have asked such a thing from you, you desire us to understand you I > > can only assume, you seem to have a thing for truth, yet lack skill in > > communicating it? > > Just like any other intellectual snob, you seem to have very high > opinion about your communication skills. But my friend, keep it in > mind : everyone knows that "verbose nothingness forms the backbone of > creative writing." So, go on publishing meaningless reference-books. > Later on you can call that as evidence for substantiating your > meaningless claims. That's what you have been doing so far while > promoting Evolution Theory... > > > In short ease up man, take a deep breath, and clarify for me your > > intent and your ideas, so that a mind as low as mine can readily > > understand. > > Now, I don't think I should comment on this. > > > > > On 18 May, 04:44, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > You are welcome, leerevdouglas. In fact, anyone with an open mind > > > is always welcome. I don't have any ill feelings even about Slip Disc. > > > All of us are part of this illusionary world. Constructive criticism > > > will eventually push us towards that Absolute Idea which is unity of > > > subjective & objective Idea. So, you have the right to be with Sippy. > > > The aim of this thread is to point out the fact that there exists > > > something about which agnostics know nothing. What looks like a > > > disjointed stream of data is, in fact, a pointer to that unknown... > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
