Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
And so my faith in the US continues to slip...

After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.

Lolwhut?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm

Turns out people don't trust atheists.

 LoneLictor wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
And so my faith in the US continues to slip...

After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.

Lolwhut?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm

Turns out people don't trust atheists.

The same people who don't trust science.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


The same people who don't trust science.

MGS, c'mon you know science is a product from the deepest levels of hell. Some call it the love child of Darwin and Satan's affair

 LoneLictor wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
And so my faith in the US continues to slip...

After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.

Lolwhut?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm

Turns out people don't trust atheists.

Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.

 AustonT wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
And so my faith in the US continues to slip...

After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.

Lolwhut?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm

Turns out people don't trust atheists.

Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.

People trust child molesters more than atheists is what it was saying.

I would say people don't trust them equally.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would say people don't trust them equally.

Which is still really quite a ridiculous stance. Even if they only trusted atheists just a bit more than child molesters it would still be a ridiculous and untenable position.

 LoneLictor wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
And so my faith in the US continues to slip...

After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.

Lolwhut?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm

Turns out people don't trust atheists.

Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.

People trust child molesters more than atheists is what it was saying.

That's funny I read the whole thing, no molesters at all in that article.

 LoneLictor wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
And so my faith in the US continues to slip...

After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.

Lolwhut?

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm

Turns out people don't trust atheists.

Don't see anything about a child molestor becoming president.

People trust child molesters more than atheists is what it was saying.

Hyperbole much?

But yes atheism is looked at in an unfavorable light.

As for the original topic, the Romneys' buying up the voting machines before an election should raise some eyebrows and should be scrutinized. Lottery officials families are not able to participate in lottery and I would note that lottery is much less important and less money involved than the presidency. While there are hurdles to prevent tom foolery with the machines(board of cronie....directors etc) the prize is just to much to to risk by not looking at the actions taken by the governors son. The act of being watched may be enough to ensure that no unfair actions will be taken.

Not really,

Aetheists, being that they don't have any belief that there will be a divine judgement at some time in the future, have no motivation to follow any sort of moral principles. As such, an Aetheist can act purely out of self-interest with no fear of the consequences. Beyond what is imposed upon him by the government, but when the Aetheist is the government we have a problem.

That is why an Aetheist cannot be trusted in the broad scheme of things.


You may not agree with it, but it is a logical belief.

Sorry, I linked the wrong article.

http://ethicalnag.org/2012/05/25/anti-atheists/

This is from a gakky blog, but the blog is citing non-gakky sources. So its legit.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not really,

Aetheists, being that they don't have any belief that there will be a divine judgement at some time in the future, have no motivation to follow any sort of moral principles. As such, an Aetheist can act purely out of self-interest with no fear of the consequences. Beyond what is imposed upon him by the government, but when the Aetheist is the government we have a problem.

That is why an Aetheist cannot be trusted in the broad scheme of things.


You may not agree with it, but it is a logical belief.

I would counter argue that atheists are more trustworthy than religious folk. When an atheist performs an act of kindness or does someother good deed, they are doing so out of genuine good will. Hyper religious types only do so to avoid their patron's displeasure.

I trust none of you all...not even my dog when there's a steak nearby...

Correct for many people, however the Aetheist has no motivation to do said kind act. And can change their beliefs on a whim.

A person that follows a religious moral code has plenty of motivation to do kind acts, and not to change.

They also have motivation to do many evil things. For example, to shoot young girls who try and get schooling for girls. Or to lynch doctors who give abortions. And these people believe such evil acts are morally correct and righteous.

Religion is a danger to humanity.

Only certain religions

 Grey Templar wrote:
Correct for many people, however the Aetheist has no motivation to do said kind act. And can change their beliefs on a whim.

A person that follows a religious moral code has plenty of motivation to do kind acts, and not to change.

I don't think you know what atheism is.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Correct for many people, however the Aetheist has no motivation to do said kind act. And can change their beliefs on a whim.

A person that follows a religious moral code has plenty of motivation to do kind acts, and not to change.

That isn't how atheism, or theism, works.

We've also seen religious people change their beliefs on a whim as well, like changing Mormonism from a cult to not being a cult just because suddenly a Mormon is more of a political ally then a Christian you don't agree with, so that doesn't seem to hold much water either.

No, religion full stop. Clinging on to fairy stories and believing them to be scientific truth is a bad, bad idea.

Religion causes war, hatred, violence, delusions, and mass stupidity. The 3 most popular religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam-were based on the misogynist, incoherent drivel scribbled into the sand by loathesome old men in ancient Israel who wanted to keep their women in line.

Holding onto religion is like gnawing on a bare chicken bone. Any benefit it may have had is completely exhausted.

Then please, inform me.


Aetheisim is the non-belief in any sort of diety or supernatural force. Am I wrong?

And I believe that without any of those things, having a true moral code is impossable.

Because codes have to be enforced and drawn up by a third party. Otherwise, anyone could change the code at whim. Which makes the very existance of the code absurde in the first place.


If we take any sort of law or moral code(which is what Laws really are), but anyone can change them at any time. Then the reason for the law/moral code's existance just doesn't exist.


Aetheists can draw up and follow a Moral code. But nothing is forcing them to do it. Thus, at any time, they can choose to ignore the code and not suffer any consequences.

And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.


But this is way off topic at this point so we should probably drop it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Electronic voting machines: the only slot machine where you lose 100% of the time.


Seriously, though. In Canada, we have a piece of paper with a large circle beside each candidate's name. You place a big X through the circle of your chosen candidate. Then at the end of the day, we count up all of the pieces of paper and determine who received the most votes. And we find it hilarious that anyone could ever possibly screw this up.

Nicely put!

And, yeah, I don't care who it is or how much I trust them or think they deserve to/will win, this voting crap shouldn't exist. If you're going to steal an election, at least you should need to be sneaky about it.

I certainly wouldn't be happy if Romney won the vote fairly, 'cause, well, fair is fair. My problem will be, at this point, I'll assume that, regardless of outcome, the basic freedoms my country was founded on were repeatedly violated along the way.

As one immigrant friend of mine said rather despairingly, at least in China, they were more honest about the corruption and suppression...

We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.

Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.

True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.

And nobody forces you to worship a particular god. You do so by choice, and then the moral code comes with that. And because of your beliefs, you follow it because you know what the consequences are. A moral code without motivation to follow it is worthless.

I disagree. A moral code which is only followed in fear of the consequences to yourself is worthless. And the "moral codes" of many religions are questionable to say the least. For example, believing that it is morally correct to lynch or spew hate upon homosexuals is most definately not morally correct.

Morality exists outside of religion, it is perpetuated by society. You only need to be a member of a society, family, or group to be in a moral/social network. The argument you present is that people will only do good if there is a reward/punishment involved by a third party which is not true. I can do something good because it makes me feel good and avoid doing bad because it makes me feel bad, no third party involved in the judgement. It can be beneficial to me doing good not only due to the feelings I receive but also can cause reciprocation further reinforcing the behavior, same goes for the bad (here is your motivation). Religion has no sole claim to morality.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Aetheists can draw up and follow a Moral code. But nothing is forcing them to do it. Thus, at any time, they can choose to ignore the code and not suffer any consequences.

And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.


But this is way off topic at this point so we should probably drop it.

An atheist's moral code (and probably just about everyone's is) is almost entirely defined by consequences, also people being naturally inclined to do evil things is an opinion not a fact when was the last time someone called you a witch, stole from you, beat you up, raped you, vandalized

your property, attempted murder, burned your gak, etc if it doesn't happen that often then I would say most people aren't doing a very good job at being evil.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Aetheisim is the non-belief in any sort of diety or supernatural force. Am I wrong?

Generally the disbelief in gods.

And I believe that without any of those things, having a true moral code is impossable.

You bear the burden of proof to demonstrate this.

Although just to give you something to think about - the prison population of the UK (where atheists may up a much larger percentage of the overall population than the US):

"Detailed data on the religion of prisoners is provided in Offender Management Caseload Statistics annual tables. As at 30 June 2011 one-half of prisoners in England and Wales were of Christian faith while 30% were recorded as having no religion." - www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04334.pdf (page 10 of the report).

In the US (I can't be bothered to go find the report that this site references):

"In **1997**, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released the professed religious adherence rate of those in the U.S. Federal Prison system.

Christians make up about 80% of the American population AND prison population.

However, Atheists make up about 8% of the American population but only 0.2% of the prison population." - http://askville.amazon.com/Religion-prison-populations-Atheists-ethical-Christians-Muslims/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=8384184

Because codes have to be enforced and drawn up by a third party.

What codes, what third party, and why?

Otherwise, anyone could change the code at whim. Which makes the very existance of the code absurde in the first place.

Again, burden of proof lies with you here. Ultimately atheists disbelieve in god, not being a good or nice person. Plus if atheists are right, all "moral codes" are man made, including those purported to be handed down from the mouth of god (and we all know that the majority of biblical commandments are completely ignored by 99.99% of Christians about 99.99% of the time, so apparently even if codes of conduct are straight from god to you Christians are not exactly in any place to claim the high ground on following a code of conduct).

Do you have any tattoos? They are against the written word of the bible, so I hope not!

If we take any sort of law or moral code(which is what Laws really are), but anyone can change them at any time. Then the reason for the law/moral code's existance just doesn't exist.

You know, I seem to recall that slavery is permitted according to the bible... How many do you own? Or have the commandments of your god been changed at some point in the past?

Aetheists can draw up and follow a Moral code. But nothing is forcing them to do it.

Other than their own conscience (I also like how the word conscience has "science" in it ), no. But then, only the fear of punishment (or lack of reward if you want to put it that way) is forcing Christians to follow their moral code too...

Thus, at any time, they can choose to ignore the code and not suffer any consequences.

Why would they change or ignore their own personal code though?

And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.

Burden of proof is on you again. I can't say I or anyone I have ever known has ever been particularly evil, regardless of their personal belief (or lack there of) in a god.

But this is way off topic at this point so we should probably drop it.

Damn, I should have read your whole post before replying

Silver, have an exalt. You earned it.

LoneLictor wrote:Sorry, I linked the wrong article.

http://ethicalnag.org/2012/05/25/anti-atheists/

This is from a gakky blog, but the blog is citing non-gakky sources. So its legit.

Again that doesn't say anything that helps to prove this.

Squigsquasher wrote:And so my faith in the US continues to slip...

After all this is the country where a child molester has more chance of becoming president than an atheist.

Make that two for silver!

 Grey Templar wrote:

And because people are naturally inclined to do evil things, this is not a good position.

This, right here, is the core of the argument. If you're a pessimistic essentialist (you believe things are the way they are by nature (or essence) rather than being defined by their actions and experiences as a developing being, and believe that this essence is essentially evil, then, yes, an authoritarian code of punishment would be the solution, assuming that punishment is a deterrent.



However, being an optimistic existentialist, I believe that people are capable of change, and that this change can be for good (though is hardly necessarily so), therefore, I expect people to function with some degree of morality, regardless of consequences, and hope that their morality is sound.

I believe, though, being a realist, that not all people are good, at which point, in theory, governmental and practical (rather than religious and, said with a little cynicism, outdated) law will hopefully step in.