I found quite a few more missing, even in other threads.
On May 18, 11:42 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 -
