We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4187
Latest Activity: yesterday

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Cancer Now Detectable from One Drop of Blood

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 14. 4 Replies

Happy birthday Carl Sagan

Started by Gerald Payne. Last reply by Dr. Terence Meaden Nov 9. 2 Replies

Vatican Arrests 2 for Leaking Documents

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Wayne Davison Nov 2. 1 Reply

Did dark matter kill the dinosaurs.

Started by Gerald Payne. Last reply by Wayne Davison Nov 2. 6 Replies

Antibiotic-Resistant Genes Found in Mummy

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by John Jubinsky Oct 20. 2 Replies

Part Ape Part Human

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne Oct 8. 4 Replies

Researchers May Have Detected More to Stonehenge

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Madhukar Kulkarni Oct 7. 6 Replies

1st Human Head Transplant Scheduled for 2017

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Madhukar Kulkarni Oct 7. 16 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by G Smith on July 12, 2011 at 10:22am
Strength in unity!  Can't we all just get along here?  :P
Comment by Marx on July 12, 2011 at 10:21am
Thank you, Dr. Kellie.  I completely agree.  I think some folks need to put this in perspective.  Some of the comments posted here remind me of how judgmental a lot of religious people can be.  At the risk of sounding religious myself, I must say that I see no value in casting stones.
Comment by mike h. on July 12, 2011 at 10:15am
Hmmm, when one sticks by their morals, how is it a "high horse"...? What are the comparisions that distinguish the use of morals a "high or low, or any horse"?
Comment by dr kellie on July 12, 2011 at 10:05am
I have been watching this exchange regarding the online vote, and for those of you on your moral high horses, I would encourage you to remember that this is an online vote for a STICKER.  Voting "fraudulently" is unethical?  Really?  Give me a break.
Comment by Rudy V Kiist on July 12, 2011 at 7:52am

I have to agree with Stephan here. Whoever started the whole process obviously meant for out of staters to vote. It's like a porn company going online getting people to click the box marked "I'm over 18". They know darn well who's watching their stuff.

If they wanted ONLY people from Ohio to vote they knew darn well how to make sure only Ohio residents vote. This would be the only way to get people from outside of state to vote, yet wash their hands of legal responsibility.

Comment by G Smith on July 12, 2011 at 7:36am
I voted for the secular sticker with the Ohio state shape on it.
Comment by John Secular Smith on July 12, 2011 at 6:12am

Actually, I've never had to delete cookies to vote again.  Apparently the JUST made that change.  And requiring zip codes in NO way limits voting, other than to Ohio.  And with no address info or anything else, it fails to be legitimate voting.

I still hold that online popularity contests to choose something that may not be Constitutional is not voting, and therefore I am ethically required to do whatever I can to keep a Constitutional choice. 

There is no honest way for the state to use majority rules to get around the Constitution.  When the state tramples my rights, I have to act against it.  I don't have the money for a court case, and even if I did the courts aren't on my side, as "God" somehow doesn't fail the Lemon test (although it obviously does).

And it isn't about my dislike of online polls, if this were a real vote it should at least be announced to the public, have places where people without the internet can vote, and require some tracking of individuals.  Internet polls are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. 

The cookie change may change that however, if they are actually trying to limit voting now.  (they are blocking my repeat votes now).

So, yes, while you sit on your high horse about an online poll, more unconstitutional crap gets the stamp of approval from the majority, and I get to live with it.


And my name is Stephan.  Not Stephen.

Comment by John Secular Smith on July 11, 2011 at 7:51pm

So I take it you don't approve of what PZ does at Pharyngula then?  I don't see this as immoral or unethical.  They have no business deciding a question where one answer is unconstitutional by popular vote.  And if their system is so easily gamed, then it is already happening and we are screwing ourselves by not doing the same. 

There is nothing illegal about this to my knowledge.

I meant for EVERYONE regardless of where you live to vote.  And vote often.  This isn't a matter of moral relativism for me, it is simple bright line: online polls are not voting.  They are popularity contests.

Comment by mike h. on July 11, 2011 at 2:02pm
I agree Richard...Surprised it took this long for this to be mentioned. It will certainly be found out by Ohio...I am not perfect in any way, daddy always said, if I do anything illegal, do it alone and do not tell anyone, and never go in partners with anyone, especially relatives!!! LOL
Comment by Michael D Kerrigan on July 11, 2011 at 1:33pm
A major difference, it would seem, between relativists and absolutists is that relativists believe that sometimes the end justifies the means, whereas absolutists believe that the end always justifies the means.

Members (4187)


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service