Amazing, fascinating and... disappointing, all at once.
This is from a poll result taken from facebook.
Initially it was 44.9%=yes and 55.1%=no
»
- Kapkao's blog
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
Amazing, fascinating and disappointing all at once.
That's the perfect summary of the loss of my virginity in just seven words.
On the OP I'm a bit surprised the numbers are this close, kap.
I think 60/40 isn't bad. What would it have been say, 50 years ago, I wonder?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
How about about 60 years ago, in the middle of a red scare?
In either case... my guess is:
93/7
As atheist is likened to
As atheist is likened to Hitler-lover, cat killer, etc I wonder what the poll would be if some sort of PC euphamism was used rather than "atheist." Even if the question read: "Would you vote for someone who doesn't believe in God to be President?" I bet the numbers would be (slightly) different. Either way could you imagine the mud slinging from the likes of "Hopey Changey Palin"? It would register as the highest amount of unintentional comedy in human existance.
How about 150 years ago when
How about 150 years ago when we elected Abraham Lincoln?
=
Answers in Gene Simmons
.... ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.
In other words... genuine atheists could be thought of as few and far in between. I would surprised if they could even fill up a football field. By the 1920s, I believe... this changed a bit.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
rdklep8 wrote:As atheist is
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I think my problem isn't
I think my problem isn't that I'm a cynic, but that I'm an anal-retentive perfectionist
And with that, I dart off to my friend's place in tallahasee for a few weeks
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)