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 : Sun Sep 25 2005 19:45:44 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" > > 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. What has this got to do with atheism? I still don't see any faith or belief in *not* believing that a magic supernatural dude created everything. Not believing supernatural and paranormal concepts is a default state. If you want to convince me or anyone else about your extraordinary claim, you have to provide extraordinary evidence. Simply saying "it is so because I say it is so" does not cut it. >>>>>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." And? Once again, what has this got to do with anything? The fact that *some* laws coincide with *some* biblical or other religious "laws" does not show that either morality or law are in any way related to the so-called religious absolute morality. >>>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. Switch and bait noted. >>>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. This applies to all societies know to date, not only dictatorships. And if you think the US is an exception to this rule, I have bad news for 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. > > 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. Nevertheless, this just shows that humans, with their overdeveloped brains, are capable of irrational, in addition to rational, thinking. Just because humans are capable of imagining a god that makes thunder or a god that makes the Universe or a jolly old man that brings presents, doesn't mean they exist. >>>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? Governments, much like armies, for all their faults and problems, are a necessary evil, unless one advocates anarchy as a solution. Religion is not. .