Sorry mate, if Google drops your post, the only solution is to resend. On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:42 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 - >>> >> >> >
