Well, well ... one more wannabe evangelist discovered his feet of clay ? @ Gabbydott ... The only daring I was expecting from FF were his answers to the start up questions. Your own potshot posts seemed inciting, as if waiting for fights and skirmishes to ensue. Your diatribe against Orn was especially uncalled for, as if you have a personal feud to settle. WTH !
Hey Fran, Chris ... felt good engaging with everyone here, with an involved mind. If you are charging me for making a comeback ... I might plead guilty too ! However much Slip would remind us of the archives, of all the discussions ad svuotamento ... yeah, not nauseum ... these fundamental topics and concepts are a pleasure to revisit, specially if someone else is shedding the light and leading the way. FF did cross Slip's dissuading skepticism, but decided he did not have the clarity to lead a discourse. Seriously, I came to see a few posts, even my own, only in ' Show Text ' link. It's a ( hot and sultry ) summer dawn, now peeping through the window. Adieu, Goodfellas ! On May 19, 1:16 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 18, 12:36 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:> I know. > And I have access to libraries. It means nothing, in the > > course of a discussion. > > > Here, you do not offer books or blogs in the middle of a conversation. > > This board has really set some fantastic rules & regulations. It is > quite heartening to see how effectively you are MANAGING this > discussion board. By looking at the marvelous language used by some of > your board members, I could immediately see that. And this is the > board which boasts of promoting meaningful discussions, hah. If > moderators don't have the capacity to control the stupids (I mean > STUPID, EGOTIST INTELLECTUALS) who can't stop using acrimonius > language, then why do these moderators show these meaningless rules to > persons like me ? Members of this worthless discussion board "Mind's > Eye" doesn't deserve knowing anything about ABSOLUTE TRUTH... See you. > Good Bye to all... > > > > > > > You only put across yourself, what you know and have to say, in terms > > and using words I can understand. And I suppose I speak for everyone > > here. > > > On May 18, 8:46 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > vamadevanand, > > > Your nickname suggests that you are conversant with certain terms > > > from Hindu philosophy. So, my direction will be quite clear to you : > > > Absolute Truth means परम तत्त्व. Instead of using the term God, I will > > > use the term Almighty so that it will sound like an entity which is > > > not tied down to any particular religion. The relation between > > > Almighty & प्रकृती is described as : > > > मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते स चराचरम् > > > हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते > > > (I have uploaded some related stuff on my blogspace > > > athttp://samirsp.blogspot.com Your comments, suggestions, criticism are > > > welcome.) > > > > On May 17, 7:17 pm, 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. > > ... > > read more »
