Ponder Bradbury's line in MC..."the answer to life is life, accept it and enjoy it, expect no more..."
On Apr 29, 2017 10:51 AM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote: > A huge dose of morphine... > > On 04/29/2017 09:46 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: > >> No, speaking about philosophy that probably cannot be confirmed with our >> current knowledge. >> >> Cosmologists have a proof with respect to locality that does open the >> door to a God. >> >> Kinda like the double slit vs the pilot wave, the more you know the more >> you discover that you don’t know. >> Margarine vs butter... >> >> Just as I cannot prove the positive, yet, nobody can prove that God does >> not exist or that what makes us who we are does not survive death. You >> cannot prove a negative in complex cases. >> >> Something caused Steve Jobs’ last words to be: “Oh Wow, Oh Wow, Oh Wow”. >> >> *From:* Jeremy >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 29, 2017 10:17 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD >> >> I just think it is funny that you are speaking about religion as if it >> can be confirmed with the scientific method. >> >> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >> I told him that a shrewd person hedges their bets. I sure do not >> want to step into a possible new existence with a God pissed off at >> me. Costs nothing and the potential upside is huge. Better than >> buying a lottery ticket. >> >> *From:* Jaime Solorza >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:36 AM >> *To:* Animal Farm >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD >> >> shoot him this one...."I know there ain't no heaven. but I PRAY >> there is no HELL." >> >> Jaime Solorza >> Wireless Systems Architect >> 915-861-1390 <tel:(915)%20861-1390> >> >> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> >> wrote: >> >> This professor and I have been going for 24 hours now. He >> quickly dropped to taunts like “have your dead son do something” >> or pray to god to cure all amputees. Odd crap like that. >> >> He guy is 62 year old and throws in a “you lose” and “reality >> check” with every posting. I am trying to asking for >> definitions of things he says like reality, truth, integrity >> etc. He does not want to do anything but say how dishonest I am >> and how repugnant, dishonest, and disgusting all religions are >> and to make unkind comments about my “dead son”. >> >> It is kinda fun playing defense on an increasingly vitriolic >> thread. I really got him wound up. Must be sad in his reality. >> >> >> >> *From:* Gino A. Villarini >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 29, 2017 6:20 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD >> >> I have always had this notion that what we understand as our >> universe a quark of someone else universe… >> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of >> "p...@believewireless.net" <p...@believewireless.net> >> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Date: Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 7:01 AM >> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD >> >> I had an astronomy professor in college and we got to the part >> where we talked about the >> theories on how the universe was created. Obviously the one that >> has the most "compelling >> concrete evidence" is the big bang theory. So we are told that >> the universe started with >> hydrogen and helium..... then something happened..... (we still >> have no clue what happened >> in that first billionth of a second) and then everything was >> created. >> >> The bible tells us in the beginning there was God and >> darkness.... then something >> happened.... and then there was light. >> >> So my professor pointed out that both science and religion both >> start with a premise that >> something existed out of nothing and that then something else >> happened and here we are. >> So they could both be right and they could both be wrong. >> Science doesn't tell us where >> the helium and hydrogen came from and religion doesn't tell us >> where God came from. >> >> Sort of link someone saying, "How do you become a millionaire?" >> And you respond, >> "Well, first get 1 million dollars." >> >> >> *//* >> >> */Gino A. Villarini/* >> >> President >> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >> >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:00 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >> No, debate and the scientific method is OK. >> >> *From:* Josh Reynolds >> *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 12:51 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD >> >> So we've cut out politics, but religion is ok? >> >> - Josh >> >> On Apr 28, 2017 1:42 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >> This guy wrote an op ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune >> today criticizing a >> doctor for claiming that divine intervention saved his >> wife's life, and the >> doctor had the temerity to make this announcement on >> earth day. So Mr. PhD >> had to take him to task in the news paper. >> >> I looked up the guys email address and sent him the note >> (at the bottom of >> the thread). Not sure if I will get any further replies >> but I did have some >> fun this morning... >> >> -----Original Message----- From: ch...@directcom.com >> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:35 PM >> To: Gregory Arthur Clark >> Subject: Re: Letter in the tribune >> >> So odd and unexpected. >> >> A truth seeker that resorts insulting someone that >> disagrees and then slams >> the door? >> Is that part of the scientific method? >> >> Personally, I prefer my pet theories to be disproved so >> I can continue the >> search. >> >> (BTW, countless anecdotal beyond the veil stories that >> reveal previously >> unknown information. But it seems your search for truth >> in that direction >> is clearly halted. ) >> >> See you in 150 years mate! >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Arthur Clark >> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:28 PM >> To: ch...@directcom.com >> Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune >> >> Replies below. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ch...@directcom.com [mailto:ch...@directcom.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:04 PM >> To: Gregory Arthur Clark <greg.cl...@utah.edu> >> Subject: Re: Letter in the tribune >> >> Hmmm, I note some emotion there. >> >> Odd indeed that you are so worked up when if you parse >> what I wrote, I was >> not conveying any information about my beliefs in >> anything. Nor was I >> defending at all what Daniels said. I don't. >> >> Odd that you seem to immediately judge me as a dishonest >> person. >> --------------- >> GC: Curious that you object to my inferences while >> making so many of your >> own. Your irrelevant ad-homs are telling and typical. >> >> ======== >> >> Just simply pointing out that it is difficult to prove >> that something does >> not exist. >> You seem to want to debate. I do know stats and null >> hypothesis analysis, I >> am educated. I am an engineer. >> ---- >> GC: Some educated people still tout nonsense. Your >> opening >> proving-a-negative trope explicitly wrt religion >> reflects ignorance, >> trolling, or both. Lose-lose-lose. >> >> ========== >> Just teasing a bit. You seem to want to reject even the >> possibility that >> some form of us will exist in 150 years such that we can >> communicate with >> each other. >> ---- >> GC: As Hitch says, that which can be asserted without >> evidence can be >> dismissed without evidence. But it's worse than that. >> Psychics are frauds, >> as are all who claim to relay or receive messages from >> beyond the veil. >> There is compelling concrete evidence that, when put to >> the test, >> consciousness does not exist without brain function. >> >> • Clark, G.A. “Science doesn’t support life after death >> claims.” Guest >> commentary. Standard-Examiner, October 22, 2014 >> (on-line); October 24 >> (print). >> Those who return from beyond the veil never tell us >> anything they couldn’t >> have said without going anywhere at all. There is no >> demonstrable awareness >> after brain shutdown. That’s what this scientific study >> actually >> shows--despite trumpeted claims otherwise by the popular >> press. >> http://www.standard.net/Guest- >> Commentary/2014/10/26/Science-doesn-t-support-life-after-dea >> th-claims.html >> <http://www.standard.net/Guest >> -Commentary/2014/10/26/Science-doesn-t-support-life-after- >> death-claims.html> >> >> ============================= >> I don't reject that idea at all, I hope for it. >> >> GC: Your inabilities are clearly stated and understood. >> But not respected. >> >> ============== >> If it doesn't happen I will never know. But if it does, >> expect a visit! >> >> Cheers, >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gregory Arthur Clark >> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:56 AM >> To: ch...@directcom.com >> Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune >> >> Thanks for your input, Chuck. My replies are >> interdigitated below. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ch...@directcom.com [mailto:ch...@directcom.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:46 AM >> To: Gregory Arthur Clark <greg.cl...@utah.edu> >> Subject: Letter in the tribune >> >> Dr. Clark, >> >> “Because when it comes to the real world, science works. >> Religion doesn’t.” >> >> You can prove a negative? Just because you have not yet >> found the knobs >> that control how religion works, does not mean they do >> not exist. >> ---- >> GC: From a pure epistemological standpoint, science and >> empirical evidence >> and inductive logic can't "prove" anything, positive or >> negative, with 100% >> certainty. So what? Science deals with probabilities. >> That's why scientific >> journals indicate the probabilities associated with >> rejecting the null >> hypothesis. >> >> What science can do is to disconfirm hypotheses beyond a >> reasonable doubt. >> Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence -- if >> the evidence should >> be there, but repeatedly and reproducibly is not. >> Science often *does* >> reject negatives. So do we as people. We reject the >> hypothesis that saying >> "abracadabra" cures all cancers, immediately. We reject >> the hypothesis that >> Godzilla just devoured all of Salt Lake City. We can >> reject the God >> hypothesis with much the same certainty as we reject the >> God hypothesis. >> >> Stop making dishonest, special-pleading exceptions for >> God. >> >> ============= >> I think you would agree that the placebo effect is a >> real thing. So in the >> case where religion triggers the placebo effect religion >> arguably does work. >> --- >> GC: Don't move the goal posts. Of course thinking and >> prayer and all sorts >> of mental activities can affect *the person doing them*. >> But it's >> self-evident and explicit that my op-ed refers to >> intercessory prayer >> regarding the *external physical world.* Praying to God >> has the same effect >> on the external physical world as praying to horse >> manure: None. >> >> ========== >> Not trying to be a troll, I am serious. I think that >> there is some chance >> that we do live in “the matrix” or perhaps our universe >> is contained in a >> small charm dangling from the collar of a cat. >> >> Will make you a wager, in 150 years if some of my ideas >> are correct, I will >> look you up and you will owe me the equivalent of a >> cosmic cup of coffee. >> Deal? >> --- >> GC: I call your bluff. Why wait? >> Pray, now, that God will heal all adult human amputees >> by re-growing their >> missing limbs. It's in the power of an omnipotent God >> to do so. >> And yet you know and I know and Professor Daniels knows >> and essentially >> *every* sane adult knows that you will fail. >> Stop making excuses for God. God "answers" prayers the >> same way that horse >> manure "answers" prayers: Not at all. >> Religion is ridiculous, repugnant, and deeply >> dishonest. Stop lying to >> yourself. And to others. >> >> ======== >> Over and out, >> Greg >> ============ >> Warm Regards, >> Chuck McCown >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
