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 : Mon Sep 26 2005 17:38:58

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:33:22 GMT, Cecil Moore <mycall@arrl.net> wrote:

>Matt Osborn wrote:
>> Atheism is exactly the same in all fundamental respects as any other
>> religion.
>
>If an atheist believes only in things that can be proven using
>the scientific method, he is the *exact opposite* of a religious
>person who substitutes blind faith for scientific inquiry.

Nothing can be proven using the scientific method.  Science, at its
fundamental root has assumptions that are agreed to by convention, not
by fact.

>> Atheism, in other words doesn't exist, it cannot exist in
>> any real sense.  
>
>This is known in scientific logic as begging the question. The
>onus of proof is upon you to first prove that a supreme supernatural
>being exists. Only after you accomplish that scientific feat of
>classic logic would you be in a position to discuss the implications.

I believe that there is much that humans, religious and non-religious
alike, do not know.  I will further say that we humans are only a
small part in a much larger system.

I see that as supernatural if we define natural as things on a human
scale.

>> Rather than I proving that an elephant can't fly, why
>> don't you prove that it can?
>
>The onus of proof is upon the person who asserts the positive
>premise which is: "God exists." Until you prove your premise, all
>of your arguments are easily recognized as logical diversions.
>Therefore all of your statements must be prefaced with:
>"If and only if my particular God exists, ...".

I do not assert that G-d exists. I have never asserted that G-d
exists.  I have asserted that atheists do not exist.  That is an
entirely different thing.

>If the existence of God were ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt
>and atheists continued to disbelieve, then atheism would become a
>religion, but not before.

Most of the atheists I know and hear from deride the religious for
their beliefs.  They call it 'voodoo' and 'superstition'.  Atheists
think that they have the one true path and that all others are based
on imaginary creations.

That is the same response I hear from evangelists. There is no
difference. Atheists have a belief in the unknown just as the
religious do. An like religious, they believe that their choice is the
only correct choice.

From my perspective, there is not a dime's worth of difference.


-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

.