Tippaporn

I started a topic on it in the Support forum. They show up differently depending on the browser. The image below is what you see when using Chrome.

Viagra?

I've been using CCleaner for 20 years. It worked for me. NE1 said he used the " Advanced Clear browsing data ", not CCleaner. Check his post above. But it will cause you to sign out of all of your sites so you'll have to sign back in after clearing the cache.

I wouldn't get caught dead with an Apple, though. And I still have a full head of hair. I can't see my dome in the mirror yet.

Any other day, though, is just fine.

Is that Basil sticking his nose out? Or is Basil a she? How much for a portrait? Of course I'd expect a highly artistic interpretation of me which shows me to be 25.

I'd still give her a thumbs up!

Yeah, I forgot to mention that small detail. Not sure if there's a solution to that. But good that you found another solution other than CCleaner.

When you die there's a guy shining a floodlight in your face so as you follow it you can see and so not trip in the dark. Turner interpreted the floodlight to be the sun. Mistakes happen.

Age takes it's toll. And it gets heavier with the years.

Did you try CCleaner?

Did you try CCleaner?

You forgot to add the disclaimer: These beliefs are mine and are not meant as a claim that they are accurate representations of bedrock reality. I am not responsible for the effects upon any other for adopting my beliefs. Subscribe to these beliefs at your own risk.

I'm sorry to have to serve as the messenger who delivers the unwelcome news to you that no one is required to provide anyone else with any proof, especially given in the acceptable terms of another. You've failed to understand my previous post regarding physical proofs in reply to your insistence that everything which exists can be proven with physical evidence. So I'll link to it so that you can reread it. Only within the framework, the paradigm of naturalism, which is a strictly materialistic worldview, can one ask for physical proofs. Physical proofs for what lay outside of that paradigm cannot in all cases be given. It is impossible. And the materialistic view of the world . . . one objective personhood, one objective world, one objective universe, is your present worldview. Hence your stubbornness to continually ask for proof of a kind which does not exist. You simply don't understand the quandary which you have created for yourself. I'll put it to you this way: Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions. That is the hard reality. Your view of a materialistic world is a belief. In the sense that it is a belief it is a belief, then, no different than a belief in God. For neither are accurate representations of reality as it exists apart from beliefs. And it should also be understood that reality does not change what it is or how it functions to conform to anyone's beliefs about it or it's functioning. Reality is supremely consistent, utterly reliable, entirely dependable and makes no exceptions. A belief is an idea considered by the subscriber to the idea of being "true." As long as one considers their belief to be "true" they will not question it. Now that is common knowledge known for ages. You believe that one objective personhood, one objective world, one objective universe is "true." Thus you would never dare question it's validity. As per Wiki from my previous post, naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true. You do not, and will not, consider whether naturalism is true or not. Therefore it seems beyond your imagination, in defiance of your logic, which logic is derived from a limited data set, that anyone could believe other than you do. Cannot see what you do. The very idea that someone can refute what you believe to be true is seen as an assault upon your very intellect and a direct renunciation of your "truths." Now I see what you see. On the other hand you do not see what I see. As long as you are unwilling to question the validity of your beliefs they will blind you to what I see. That is the quandary you've created for yourself. No amount of argument or rationale or logic which you can provide others who see what I see can convince them that they do not know what they know. All I'm telling you, fusion58, is there exists more, much more, than what you are currently aware of. You claim that only that which you are aware of is all that exists. I say, "no." Accept it or reject it. Up to you.

Oh, dear. Since I didn't point out any of Sean Carroll's specific logical flaws then I must be merely making a fraudulent claim since my claim was only in the general. Hence your "gotcha" expressed by your "LOL." And so you now challenge me to point out just one . . . if I can . . . in the hope that I can't and thus, well, you get to rejoice in your "gotcha" moment. "I proved Tippers wrong!!!" So let's have some fun. The Sean Carroll quote you provided clearly identifies his belief in naturalism, as he uses it to contrast it with theism in all of his examples. For the benefit of the audience let's define 'naturalism' so we're all on the same page. The bolded text in all quotes is mine. In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe. In its primary sense it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This stronger formulation of naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism. On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism. Naturalism makes one basic assumption around which the idea achieves it's singular validity. That assumption is that of a single objective personhood, a single objective world, and a single objective universe . . . all a part of "Nature." Objectivity, or materialism, is all that exists. Stated by Charles Albert Dubray in 1911: "Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning" Naturalism, therefore, by it's very definition must deny the existence of any phenomenon outside of a single, objective, materialistic reality. I admit that there is another option to outright denial, though. And that is to fit, or squeeze, all unexplained phenomenon into naturalism's narrow confines by explaining it in a way that makes a modicum of rational sense. And logical explanations which are seemingly solid given only naturalism's premises. All mental machinations necessary, of course, to make it fit. But what if naturalism's premise, it's Great Assumption, is in false. Well, dear fusion58, then the rules of this game of life change quite dramatically and radically. That conclusion.is based on deductive logic. It's a priori. Sean Carroll's arguments are logical only within the framework of naturalism. Framework equating to paradigm as given in the first quote. Outside of the framework of naturalism the arguments are illogical. Again refer to the first quote, "Naturalism should be assumed [to be true]. . . without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true." How convenient, eh? Lets' assume it true and not consider whether it is or not. Sheesh!! Which is why I made the general statement that his arguments, all based on the idea of naturalism being true, contain holes in their logic. But again, those holes can only be perceived if his assumption is not taken as Bible (pun intended ). You have to take the "naturalism" blinders off to see them. Which you obviously don't. "You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner." Here Carroll offers a fallacy of argument which exists even within the paradigm of naturalism. For his theistic conclusions do not logically follow. Here he is willing to go to disingenuous lengths to "prove" his point. Now I'll leave you to the one, two, three-liner short posts. As you consider your snippet statements to be overwhelming self-evident and self-explanatory then there's simply no reason for you to provide long-winded rationales and logic which support your self-evidential statements. You assume them to be true, after all. And, according to your logic, so should everyone else. You can leave it to me to provide the verbose rationales and logic necessary for clear understanding that, if nothing else, question your assumptions as true. To your dismayed chagrin, of course.

@GammaGlobulin Well, fusion58 decided to resurrect this dead thread as he's replied to me, and being a polite fellow I tend not to ignore posters, and so will give him his answer. This then gives me the opportunity to respond to your non response of my quoted post, GammaGlobulin. So to recap that post: I offered you an olive branch, complimented you with sincerity, wisely pointed out that differences between people's ideas always exist and also wisely suggested to not make such Everest-sized mountains of that molehill, wisely suggested that there always exist enough enjoyable commonalities to focus on that more than offset any differences, and wisely suggested it is better to have a friend than an enemy. Now you can ignore this post as well, and in truth I'm not even looking for a reply to it. Rather, my purpose here is simply to comment on your non reply. To say that I'm a bit shocked, given the impression of you which I had built up via your many interesting and highly creative posts, in that I didn't think it was in your character to ignore such a gracious offering, whether from me or anyone else whom you might have disagreement with on, really, trivial matters. Correction: It was the Why does God >insert your grievance here<....? thread which fusion58 revived, not this one. My mistake. But no matter.

Don't do it guys. It's just clickbait that takes you to the Seth cult website! Where everyone gets as many of her as they like. Forget the 99 virgins the Muslims are offering. This is unlimited!! And . . . you get to create 'em just the way you want 'em. Think Burger King . . . "have it your way!" Viagra not supplied with this offer.

Come on. baby. I need one more reaction to achieve a Popular Post. Who is gonna do it? Don't do it for me. Do it for her. Look at those beggin' eyes. Forget what Sunmaster said about not indulging in egotistical corporeal excesses from you lower self. Go for her!!

Sorry I hadn't read your entire post and didn't realise that you had already cleared your cache, NE1. Well, perhaps I'm wrong. I used CCleaner and that did more than clear the cache. So maybe it was something else which CCleaner did that solved the problem. I'm no expert so I can at best say what worked for me. If you don't have CCleaner you can download the free version and run it. Maybe that would work for you. Now I have AN opened on Firefox. I just checked Chrome and the emoticons are working fine with that browser, too, now that I ran CCleaner.

Nothing PC or gobbledygook about it. As long as we experience ourselves as male and female then sexual beliefs will be formed. And a lot of those beliefs about our sexual natures are highly distorted. The degree of distortions varying between cultures. In other terms we are neither male nor female. Do you really think God is an old man? Or is that simply due to our personification of God in which we paint an image of him using the sexual qualities prevalent in our male dominated society? Why isn't God a woman? Seth is simply speaking to the prevalent beliefs we have about feminine and masculine qualities, which have an effect on us, and applying those beliefs as they exist in western culture to Einstein. He's showing how those sexual beliefs affected Einstein in particular. Scientists, especially back in those days, were mainly males. Females in science were frowned upon. That's due to the culture distortions of male and female aspects. We each have both aspects within us but generally the one that takes dominance is determined by our biology. Gays are evidence of what happens when the opposite sexual aspects of our biological sex are given more play.

I wonder what you looked like in the early 2000s versus today.

Clear your browser's cache. I had the identical problem as you. Looks like you're using Chrome.

Hanging around you guys it was bound to happen sooner than later.

Oh ,the irony. Well, it's an all girl band so credit where credit is due. At least they're not misogynistic.

You can close this thread out, thank you. It dawned on me that perhaps I needed to clear my browser caches. That did the trick!