Bwahahah ohh you funny funny person. So I ask you to clarify your words, I say (in effect) that my mind is too small to understand your intent and your stance from the babble of words that you let go in one endless uncoherant stream, and in response you say that I am an intectual snob.
Two things for you to consider then FF. You do not know me at all, and so your judgement call this time is I can assure 100% wrong, and perhaps more importantly have you ever heard of the expression 'pot calling the kettle black'. Umm now hold on a second I have just noticed a third point. I asked you to act in a freindly mannor and instead you offer me insult. I think I'll not be far wrong if I then infer you are just not a friendly person. Was your offer to leave us sincer? We'll see I guess. On 18 May, 18:44, 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 »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
