Satan is just as powerful as God

[Medicine*Woman]

and what do u belive in? mediine woman

*************
M*W: I love being the matriarch of my family. I love my children, my grandchildren. They are the reason I'm here. I have them, I don't need a god. I seem to have outlived everybody else I was related to, but I still love them even though they're gone.

I love my neighbors.

I love my dogs (Duke and Duchess). I call them Dookie and Duchie.

I love to deliver babies and comfort the mothers who are giving birth. I've done that for 41 years, quite successfully, I might add. The real joy comes when I deliver the babies of the babies I've delivered! It get complicated when I try to count the babies of the grandbabies I've delivered. I let them keep count now. You can imagine how many relatives show up for a birth now, especially when I deliver them at home. Oh well, I digress...

I love Southern West Virginia (thanks for the memories, Billy T).

I love Texas. I live here, but the archeologists will be digging up my bones deep in Appalachia.

I love my country. I served her in my youth, and I will get this old body to stand and defend her as long as I'm alive.

I love to write. I have too many publications to list, but I need to protect Medicine*Woman's true identity.

I love being a registered member of Sciforums.

I love being an atheist. I was already on the path, but Sciforums led me to the destination. I love the fact that there is no god. We are all the drivers of our destinies.

I love life, and every minute I live it.

 

[stateofmind]

I don't see how you get that from CC's questioning of JB's statement that reality isn't objective.

You said I was wrong in saying that CrunchyCat believes that everything is objective.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

*************
M*W: I love being an atheist.

It is the best, no doubt about it. Em Dub, this response of yours to Sandy is one of my favorites...short and to the point plus it speaks volumes and a true atheist knows what you mean by it.

M*W: Your "joy" is not worth stealing.

 

[Billy T]

An open letter to long dead Mary:

I write in the hope I can again clear my mind of its fresh memories of our time together. Ever since I wrote post 32, thoughts of you have filled it when not distracted by present day concerns or others. - Often filling my eyes too with sweet tears, as now.

Those nearly two years we lived together were perhaps the most beautiful and enjoyable of my youth. I have had a wonderful, lucky, and adventuresome life without you, but I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like, if when I graduated, I had taken you with me to my new job.

I am not sure you would have gone as you disliked permanent routines and conventions, but we were happy together and undeniably you were becoming more stable. Less than a decade later new and quite effective psycho therapeutic drugs for manic depressives were discovered. I fear now I did you a great disservice by not insisting that you leave Baltimore with me. We need not have ever married. – Just living together as we did the prior LASL summer is quite common and openly accepted now. - No need now for unspoken, implicit lies.

I certainly do not regret much in my life, but us not going away together when I graduated may have been a great error, especially for you. I am sorry.

With love still, your “salty dog.”

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I must be since I can't remember asserting this. I'll just hope it's a temporary amnesia on my part and not a part of some more serious disorder. [wrings hands frantically]

Sing it

 

[Jozen-Bo]

It doesn't work that way.
You have the burden of proof as you are claiming something exists outside of normal measurement.

You must demonstrate your claim.

Sounds like the typical Jame's Randi forumer one liner to me. So official...

Anyways I ain't buying it. In fact, I'll simplify this a great deal.

I can't prove that reality includes subjective. Can't do it.

Your turn! Can you prove that it is all objective! Are you gonna just talk or walk the walk...

If you can't prove it I can't accept what your saying on this point. Simple!

What Neverfly said.

You're definitinon is very incomplete. Here is the evidence:

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/su/subjective225350.html

"Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own consciousness, in distinction from external observation; ralating to the mind, or intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or material excessively occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal states. "

Maybe it is, that remains to be seen. There are many online dictionaries...my turns coming up!

Also, the definition you provide provides evidence that there IS such thing as subjective reality...nice choice!!

CrunchyCat insinuated, though didn't flat out say, that everything in reality is objective. Jozen Bo was asking him to prove this claim. Therefore, unless I'm mistaken about CrunchyCat's claim (and if I am please correct me), CrunchyCat has the burden of proof on him to prove that everything is objective.

I'm seeing this too...

You're wrong:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2518740&postcount=25
JB stated that it wasn't, and CC asked for evidence...

I stated that reality wasn't 100% objective, yes. CC insinuated that it is.

And, as noted earlier in this reply I stated I can't prove it. Thus...his turn!!!

CrunchyCat is perfectly fine flat out saying that everything is objective.

It is not necessarily the case that making a claim alone requires the burden of proof. Although it often happens to work out that way...

It's that a claim that is Outside of observation requires support.

Basically, if you don't agree you cry out ''prove it, prove it'' and if you do ''hurray!!!''. Understood!

I see so CrunchyCat is on the fence as to whether subjectivity or objectivity exist at all. Does that mean that CrunchyCat isn't sure if he exists himself? What a crazy experience life must be for him!!

Lol...I think he thinks we are just a bunch of equations and measurements of physical stuff...which not even scientist can really say what it is...that is why they are smashing particles looking for answers.

And that we came about as a consequence of the objective reality farting, as it would every time because the equations and measurements add up like so. And we, consequently are objective equations and measurements that follow the strict orders of the objective reality and are in now way capable of straying from those, even if we think otherwise that would just be another equation of our internal measurements processing.

He apparently isn't familiar with bifurcations...:bugeye:

 

[Neverfly]

Sounds like the typical Jame's Randi forumer one liner to me. So official...

I still read there on rare occasion, but I no longer post there.
The reason being that the atheists there tend to badly represent atheists in general.

Anyways I ain't buying it.

Too bad. The burden of proof remains on you.
If you choose not to, you won't go to jail or anything. You won't get banned over it. It's just that folks will know to not take you seriously.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Maybe it is, that remains to be seen.

I just demonstrated it. If you choose not to see that then that's your problem.

There are many online dictionaries...my turns coming up!

I haven't found any that say anything different. I can show you the agreement amongst multiple dictionaries if you need to see it.

Also, the definition you provide provides evidence that there IS such thing as subjective reality...nice choice!!

No it doesn't. It defines the subjective as that which is exclusively in your mind.

I stated that reality wasn't 100% objective, yes. CC insinuated that it is.

And, as noted earlier in this reply I stated I can't prove it. Thus...his turn!!!

Not really. Only one of us made a claim of truth. If you cannot provide evidence for it then your claim is rather silly and dismissable. I had not issued a claim; however, if I did claim that all of reality is objective then I could easily demonstrate it with a simple experiment. Put your arm into a roaring fire for 60 seconds and "believe" it will not get burned. If your belief does not change the outcome of getting burned then you just proved that your thoughts have no effect on reality; thus, reality is purely objective.

 

[stateofmind]

Not really. Only one of us made a claim of truth. If you cannot provide evidence for it then your claim is rather silly and dismissable. I had not issued a claim; however, if I did claim that all of reality is objective then I could easily demonstrate it with a simple experiment. Put your arm into a roaring fire for 60 seconds and "believe" it will not get burned. If your belief does not change the outcome of getting burned then you just proved that your thoughts have no effect on reality; thus, reality is purely objective.

Hey guys! Call up all the renowned institutions of science! CrunchyCat just proved once and for all that all of reality is purely objective!! And who would have thought it was so simple to prove?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hey guys! Call up all the renowned institutions of science! CrunchyCat just proved once and for all that all of reality is purely objective!! And who would have thought it was so simple to prove?

That's kind of a known in science. Your statement is as silly as calling the life guard to inform him that water is wet.

 

[stateofmind]

That's kind of a known in science. Your statement is as silly as calling the life guard to inform him that water is wet.

I'm a little surprised that I have to take this seriously but I guess I shouldn't be. First off, how do you test that one is believing sufficiently enough to change reality into one in which fire doesn't burn you? How do you test that one is believing at all? How did you test to see if ordinary thoughts have a more subtle effect upon reality?

These are just a few questions off the top of my head.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

I still read there on rare occasion, but I no longer post there.
The reason being that the atheists there tend to badly represent atheists in general.

There are some real cases over there...

Too bad. The burden of proof remains on you.
If you choose not to, you won't go to jail or anything. You won't get banned over it. It's just that folks will know to not take you seriously.

Apparently you weren't listening when I said I can't do it and now your turn...can you prove the opposite.

I will reinstate it to make it even clearer...I don't care and am not going to waste my time trying to prove something over a forums that deals greatly with opinions.

I just demonstrated it. If you choose not to see that then that's your problem.

No you didn't. If you choose to think you did that is your problem..

I haven't found any that say anything different. I can show you the agreement amongst multiple dictionaries if you need to see it.

I haven't bothered to look cause I really don't care...maybe I will sometime...who knows...

No it doesn't. It defines the subjective as that which is exclusively in your mind.

You missed the point. Exclusive to any mind, mine or yours does not mean it doesn't exist. Otherwise it would have said subjective is some hog wash hippy idea that doesn't really exist. In my mind there is reality, and its subjectivity which is exclusive to it is real. And that definition is in accordance with this statement.

Not really. Only one of us made a claim of truth. If you cannot provide evidence for it then your claim is rather silly and dismissable. I had not issued a claim; however, if I did claim that all of reality is objective then I could easily demonstrate it with a simple experiment. Put your arm into a roaring fire for 60 seconds and "believe" it will not get burned. If your belief does not change the outcome of getting burned then you just proved that your thoughts have no effect on reality; thus, reality is purely objective.

This experiment of yours is silly. I have a hard time taking it seriously...

Hey guys! Call up all the renowned institutions of science! CrunchyCat just proved once and for all that all of reality is purely objective!! And who would have thought it was so simple to prove?

Get out the Nobel Awards!!!

That's kind of a known in science. Your statement is as silly as calling the life guard to inform him that water is wet.

I don't recall ever learning anything about subjective and objective in science classes. The closest a class came would be pyschology, the scientific study of the mind and brain. Oh...and they are very certain there is such thing as subjective reality...so your statement is inconsistent with the scientific community from what I have seen..

I'm a little surprised that I have to take this seriously but I guess I shouldn't be. First off, how do you test that one is believing sufficiently enough to change reality into one in which fire doesn't burn you? How do you test that one is believing at all? How did you test to see if ordinary thoughts have a more subtle effect upon reality?

These are just a few questions off the top of my head.

None of this is a real test, there is no real theory involved, only wild speculations with an attempt to deduct a logical answer. Hypothetical forum word 'tests' won't ever amount to a scientific achievement...its just fun to debate..

 

[Crunchy Cat]

First off, how do you test that one is believing sufficiently enough to change reality into one in which fire doesn't burn you?

You're asking the wrong question. You can only test for sufficiency if a phenomena requiring sufficiency has been demonstrated to exist.

How do you test that one is believing at all?

In this particular demonstration, the believer would be someone who claims reality is subjective. Jozen Bo for example would be the perfect test case and the results of the test would demonstrate him incorrect. He could repeat the test and get the same results with perfect consistency.

How did you test to see if ordinary thoughts have a more subtle effect upon reality?

Put a person in a closed room and ask him to change objective reality using his thoughts. Then test to see if that worked.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Neverfly and CC and JoBo...

Jobo says ''I need to go pee''

CC says ''Prove it''

Jobo says ''Why''

Everfly says ''No one will ever take you seriously if you don't, the burden of proof is yours''

Then Jobo says ''here's your proof'' and proceeds to pee on both CC and Everfly!

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly and CC and JoBo...

Jobo says ''I need to go pee''

CC says ''Prove it''

Jobo says ''Why''

Everfly says ''No one will ever take you seriously if you don't, the burden of proof is yours''

Then Jobo says ''here's your proof'' and proceeds to pee on both CC and Everfly!

That's, "Neverfly."

We are not talking about urinating, we were debating. Debates have rules. IF you choose not to follow proper debate techniques, there is no need for anyone to take your debate seriously.

It is not rocket science.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No you didn't. If you choose to think you did that is your problem..

Post #55 demonstrates it quite clearly. If you deny it, that's your lie/delusion.

I haven't bothered to look cause I really don't care...maybe I will sometime...who knows...

Lies. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have bothered posting your (incorrect) definition or this response.

You missed the point. Exclusive to any mind, mine or yours does not mean it doesn't exist.

That's what exclusivity means. It is restricted (in this case to your mind). If you visualize a big purple dinosaur walking around exclusively in your mind then there is no big purple dinosaur walking around external to your mind. In other words, what exists is your thought but not an actual big purple dinosaur.

Otherwise it would have said subjective is some hog wash hippy idea that doesn't really exist.

There is a state called truth. When what's in your mind coresponds to reality then you have truth (i.e. it isn't exlusive to your mind). The idea of subjective has correspondence to actual reality.

In my mind there is reality, and its subjectivity which is exclusive to it is real. And that definition is in accordance with this statement.

Please paraphrase as to what exactly you mean in this statement.

This experiment of yours is silly. I have a hard time taking it seriously...

If you think predictable and demonstrable outcomes are silly then that's your problem.

I don't recall ever learning anything about subjective and objective in science classes.

With the exception of brain-related sciences, theres no need to mention it. Most students of science realize that a chemical compound doesn't care what you think. Your thoughts will not make a dissected cow heart beat. Your opinions will not make photons turn purple.

The closest a class came would be pyschology, the scientific study of the mind and brain. Oh...and they are very certain there is such thing as subjective reality...so your statement is inconsistent with the scientific community from what I have seen..

Demonstrate that psychology thinks there is a "subjective reality" that somehow supports your claim that reality isn't 100% objective.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Neverfly and CC and JoBo...

Jobo says ''I need to go pee''

CC says ''Prove it''

Jobo says ''Why''

Everfly says ''No one will ever take you seriously if you don't, the burden of proof is yours''

Then Jobo says ''here's your proof'' and proceeds to pee on both CC and Everfly!

It's already a known that humans pee and whether or not you actually needed to is largely irrelevant.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

That's, "Neverfly."

We are not talking about urinating, we were debating. Debates have rules. IF you choose not to follow proper debate techniques, there is no need for anyone to take your debate seriously.

It is not rocket science.

Hmmmm....you missed the point...:bugeye:...which was the not to take the debate too seriously...

Post #55 demonstrates it quite clearly. If you deny it, that's your lie/delusion.

Now your calling me a liar...let me guess, over in that thread about animals lying you think that they do as well...

Lies. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have bothered posting your (incorrect) definition or this response.

Amusing.

That's what exclusivity means. It is restricted (in this case to your mind). If you visualize a big purple dinosaur walking around exclusively in your mind then there is no big purple dinosaur walking around external to your mind. In other words, what exists is your thought but not an actual big purple dinosaur.

I know that!

There is a state called truth. When what's in your mind coresponds to reality then you have truth (i.e. it isn't exlusive to your mind). The idea of subjective has correspondence to actual reality.

Subjective exists, therefor it is real. That is what I was saying. I never said it means that it is in accord with objective reality at all times, only that it is there.

Please paraphrase as to what exactly you mean in this statement.

That whether the subjective mind sees its objective reality as it is or not is aside the point that it does exist. Even if it is wrong it does exist...with the false perceptive view.

If you think predictable and demonstrable outcomes are silly then that's your problem.

I think putting your hand in the fire is a silly 'experiment'. Testing predictable and demonstrable theories is not.

With the exception of brain-related sciences, theres no need to mention it. Most students of science realize that a chemical compound doesn't care what you think. Your thoughts will not make a dissected cow heart beat. Your opinions will not make photons turn purple.

Thus it does appear in science as something to consider and understand. Just not every field of science.

Also, I recall hearing several times in several different places that some predictable and demonstrable tests are now using sensitive equipment and that the nature of the test and the measurements involved are showing that the thoughts do have an effect on physical properties outside of itself.

The Snowflake tests by that Japanese guy (I can't remember his name right now...) is one of the best examples.

Demonstrate that psychology thinks there is a "subjective reality" that somehow supports your claim that reality isn't 100% objective.

Please rephrase this so I can follow what you mean.

It's already a known that humans pee and whether or not you actually needed to is largely irrelevant.

Read my above reply..

 

[Neverfly]

Hmmmm....you missed the point...:bugeye:...which was the not to take the debate too seriously...

Yes, I must have. Because now, I'm just not taking you very seriously.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Yes, I must have. Because now, I'm just not taking you very seriously.

Big deal...

I'm not taking you seriously either. You chirp and sputter like some sort of robot...another Spock wannabe...hurray!!!