ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

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: 4188
Latest Activity: Aug 28

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

Ancestral humans had more DNA

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Gerald Payne Aug 28. 6 Replies

Researhers Turn Off Obesity Gene in Mice

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Susan Stanko Aug 22. 5 Replies

Mini moons may zip around Earth

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Gerald Payne Aug 19. 3 Replies

explanation for reality Theism or Atheism?

Started by dudaboli yev. Last reply by Joseph P Jul 31. 5 Replies

Fossils illustrate evolution of life

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jul 27. 1 Reply

On Abolishing Religion

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jul 16. 69 Replies

Researchers Say There Might be Life After Death

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Jul 15. 56 Replies

On the scientific miracles of Qur'an

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Daniel Gotro Jun 26. 25 Replies

Modern Humans Interbred with Neanderthals in Europe

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jun 25. 3 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

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

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.
Comment by Marx on July 11, 2011 at 1:13pm
Perhaps sehkmet was just directing his comments to Ohio residents.  That is what I would like to think.
Comment by mike h. on July 11, 2011 at 12:10pm
Oh my, voting from out-of-state, and more than once?? Dang Athiests have no morals at all!!!! LOL
 

Members (4186)

 
 
 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service