One could only question FF's level of ferocity. Considering the degree to which FF counter argued points I would think more on the line of Feeble with Flaccid pectorals.
Hey, let's look at the good side, this thread is starting to produce some interesting levity. On May 20, 3:52 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Meh don't belive this goodbye, we have seen this before. I recon one > or two more posts before FF decides to leave us. Then again, FF may > be able to get a grip on themselves and offer up some meat for > discussion, you never know. > > On 19 May, 04:27, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Goodbye to all? Well good riddance to you! > > > I'm disappointed that you didn't have the where with all to support > > your position. Now you are going to leave with your tail between your > > legs like a dog afraid to stand up for what he believes. > > > This is all just a rue on your part mainly to evoke counter attack > > against your onslaught of insult against those of us who have mental > > resource. > > > I don't see that you have much foundation, neither do you offer any > > substantiation other than your own personal perception; the basis of > > which is still unknown. > > > Perhaps you are just another troll. > > > On May 18, 3:16 pm, 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 > > ... > > read more »
