Subj : Re: "Hams to the Rescue After Katrina" MSNBC News Article
To   : alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From : Zoran Brlecic
Date : Sat Sep 24 2005 16:04:00

From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf

Matt Osborn wrote:

>>>In all cases, they believe and act according to their beliefs.  That
>>>the atheists fall prey to their unrecognized beliefs cannot be
>>>disputed.
>>
>>And this is because you say so?
> 
> Please counter the argument.  If atheists do not have faith in their
> beliefs, then upon what basis would they judge their choices?

First of all, atheism is non-belief in deities. That's it. Anything else 
you're adding to this concept is your own projection.
Second, you're equivocating and word-playing on the term "belief". What 
beliefs are we talking about in atheism? Atheists don't believe in gods 
- a lack of belief is not belief any more than baldness is a hair color.
So, then, what beliefs? When you define this I'll "counter the argument"

>>>I do not deny that both are fallible, however, history demonstrates
>>>that the religious, despite their failures, have improved the human
>>>condition immeasurably where atheists have been only a blight upon
>>>civilization.
>>
>>??? You have got to be kidding? What has religion possibly done for 
>>anyone except provided false hope while stealing their money?
> 
> Law itself is derived directly from religious thought.

Sometimes is, sometimes isn't. In the primitive tribal societies it was 
much simpler to rule lawless people if you told them some god passed a 
certain law and it just so happens that you have a direct communication 
line with that god, so that you can interpret it. This is how religions 
got born, and by a curious coincidence they all demanded money from 
their followers.
Now, show how, for example, the American legal system is derived from 
religion. Point out the law that makes it illegal to "covet one's ass" 
or to eat shellfish or to wear clothes made from two different fabrics.

> If there were no belief system, there could be no law.

??? Look, just pulling statements out of your ass does not make them 
believable. If you want to convince people, you have to present 
arguments in a coherent way.

What is so difficult about law anyway? Does it really take a genius to 
figure out that murder, rape, slavery, genocide and theft are 
detrimental to a society? We need some book written by ancient 
goat-herders to tell us what laws are supposed to be? Besides, where, 
for example, does the Bible say that slavery is wrong? Oh, that's right, 
it doesn't - as a matter of fact, it explicitly condones it. It also 
condones genocide, rape, infanticide and all sorts of other behavior 
that nowadays is considered uncivilized (albeit only when perpetrated by 
the God's chosen people against infidels). Strangely enough, there is no 
mention of abortion in the Bible whatsoever, while one of the two wildly 
different versions of the Ten Commandments deals with God's humongous 
vanity.

> Dictatorships have no law, that's what makes them so awful.

??? You're not serious, are you?

  >>Stifling science (from Galileo to stem cells), witch burning, condoning
>>slavery, religious genocide on unprecedented scale, eradicating whole 
>>civilizations, oppressing women, condoning fascism and 
>>national-socialism, suppressing human rights for minorities, huge waste 
>>of resources that could be better spent elsewhere, contributing to 
>>millions of dead from AIDS by banning contraceptives, flaming national 
>>and religious intolerance from Ireland to Palestine, and I could go on 
>>forever...
>>
>>As for your "blight" comment, a majority of scientists are atheists, for 
>>example. The percentage increases with education. That's education *not* 
>>Kansas style.
> 
> Do not attribute to religion the faults of mankind. Religion is a much
> broader concept than that represented by any known religion.

No, it isn't. Your turn.

> While you're assessment of some religions at a particular point in
> time are on the mark, you overlook that same religion at an earlier or
> later point in time when it was substantially different.
> 
> Like all things implemented by man, some succeed in their stated
> purpose and others fail.

Yes, I agree that most of them succeed in their primary purpose, which 
is allowing a class of social parasites to live off the gullible. From 
Christianity to Scientology. The ultimate Ponzi scheme.


73 ... WA7AA

.