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 On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> 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:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> on behalf of "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 7:01 AM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > 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, <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, debate and the scientific method is OK. >> >> *From:* Josh Reynolds >> *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 12:51 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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, <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>> 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: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune >>> >>> Replies below. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:04 PM >>> To: Gregory Arthur Clark <[email protected]> >>> 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-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: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune >>> >>> Thanks for your input, Chuck. My replies are interdigitated below. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:46 AM >>> To: Gregory Arthur Clark <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>> >>> >
