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 : Sun Sep 25 2005 23:28:50

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:45:44 -0700, Zoran Brlecic
<...WA7AA...@get.lost> wrote:

>Matt Osborn wrote:
>> 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.

May I suggest you read the 'Golden Bough' by Frazer, for starters. The
belief in the unknown is universal, it is a fundamental part of the
human psyche.

When you say " I still don't see any faith or belief in *not*
believing that a magic supernatural dude created everything", you are
merely saying that what you believe is better than what the other guy
believes.  I've heard the same from some Christians speaking of
Muslims, from some Muslims speaking of Christians, etc.

What you seem to be doing is standing on soap box and claiming that
Atheism is correct and religion is not.  That Atheism has basis in
fact where other religions are based on superstitions.

Atheism is exactly the same in all fundamental respects as any other
religion.  Atheism, in other words doesn't exist, it cannot exist in
any real sense.  Rather than I proving that an elephant can't fly, why
don't you prove that it can?



-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

.