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 19:13:13

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:15:43 -0700, Zoran Brlecic
<...WA7AA...@get.lost> wrote:

>Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> If you can present a cogent argument for ethics and morality that
>> requires absolutely no assumptions, then you could make a case for
>> atheism.
>
>This is false dichotomy. Also, as I said before, atheism is simply 
>non-belief in gods. It does not prescribe any morals, ethics or behavior.
>Furthermore, if you claim that our morals are based on your scriptures, 
>and if I then go through that "holy" book and find a contradictory 
>example then it should be obvious that your argument falls apart.
>So if your Bible explicitly condones rape and slavery, how do you 
>reconcile this with your religion-derived morals, other than through 
>cognitive dissonance?
>
>According to you, all atheists should be immoral by definition. It 
>follows that prisons should be overflowing with them. Yet, strangely 
>enough, in American prisons, Christians are over-represented, while 
>atheists (along with Jews and Muslims) are under-represented.

No, I don't think atheists are amoral or unmoral, I just don't think
it's possible to be an atheist.



-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

.