On 25 May, 23:18, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > No, I did not die via Descartes or some other dead man, I died in my > own body all by myself. This is possible for women, too, you know. >
Of course. I take it, though, that you were revived. Or, you have (or are) a ghostwriter. ;-) > On 25 Mai, 14:34, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 24 May, 21:19, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Believe me, you'll know when your dead, Patty. > > > How do you know? Have you had the experience and come back? If you > > came back, then you didn't die. So, THAT can't be your proof. How do > > you back up what you purport? Or do you just speak idly about that > > about which you know little to nothing? Argue your way out of THAT, > > if you can. > > > If you use Cartesian thought, i.e., "I think, therefore I am", then, > > if you KNOW you're dead, you still know you exist. So, if you're > > right in that we will know when we are dead, then that proves > > 'existence after death' via Descartes. ;-) > > > > On 24 Mai, 13:30, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. Why > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to enjoy > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How would you > > > > know? > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained > > > > > > phenomena > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man made > > > > > > "God > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the world > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often find > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as empirical > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this is > > > > > > mass > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on your > > > > > > lack > > > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing that > > > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound in > > > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the believing > > > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down to > > > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and greed for > > > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of "the > > > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is not > > > > > > the > > > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to convince > > > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain that > > > > > > God > > > > > > shall do his own work with you. > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
