I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still evokes the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS just IS can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my window. You have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When looking at the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially is a human construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of macro- religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and experience with our physical senses while the natural world leaves open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the point at which the constructs begin to take form because there is no proof otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific proof anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create "Myth". Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and sacrificial human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason we have yet to let go of the main theme of religious belief. Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation of the unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil and the need to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead to a oneness, a central being, a deity and in some cultures a multiplicity, a composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe such as the ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of humanity and what you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the oneness, an extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an uncanny resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions are worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of god. Why? We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This tendency is unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history shown in anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all remains to this day simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit unspeakable atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing and instill guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life.
On May 21, 6:51 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 May, 15:26, 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. > > > 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. > > > 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) > > > 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.” > > While I usually support Einstein, here we differ a tad. Einstein went > in search of truth and discovered 'relativity'. This discovery > flavoured his view of truth, as he discovered the importance of the > 'reference point' from within the system. But what if one's reference > point is outside the system? The Qur'an states (22:6) 'God is the > Reality/Absolute Truth.' The Arabic is "Allah Al-Haqq". It's a > statement that is perfectly congruent with the physics I propose and, > within it, still allows for the 'Special Relativity' that we > experience. The viewpoint is whether or not one is outside or inside > the box. Einstein was IN the box whereas Allah IS the box. > > > 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 -
