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 : Matt Osborn Date : Sat Sep 24 2005 19:00:29 From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:04:00 -0700, Zoran Brlecic <...WA7AA...@get.lost> wrote: >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" Belief requires faith in something unknown. I see no difference if one were to name that unknown G-d or call it by some other name. Regardless of the name, we attribute 'correctness' to something we do not know. >>>>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. American law is based upon English common law. English common law, in turn, is based upon "tradition, custom, and precedent." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law >> 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. The single largest disagreement in the United States today is the power of government vs the power of the individual. Should each individual control all of his resources or do those resources ultimately belong to the state. >> Dictatorships have no law, that's what makes them so awful. > >??? You're not serious, are you? > The trappings of law are meaningless if they do not apply equally to all. Dictators are the law. > >>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. Humans have many attributes, they think, they see, they stink, they feel, they love, they hate, etc. Among those attributes are religion. See Frazer's 'Golden Bough' for the parallels between all religions, ancient and modern. His work has had a substantial impact on the field of psychology. >> 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. > Are speaking of governments or only religion? -- msosborn at msosborn dot com .