Hacker News? How does a slate.com article like this get on the front page? I've read freshman philosophy papers that were more intellectually engaging than this.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.)
They're probably smart enough to get "things beyond programming" from other sources wouldn't you say?
Discussing religion (again), why women are cold, what 'adolescence' means, is not hacking IMHO. There is more than enough of that sort of thing elsewhere.
No. But similarly, there's more that interests the average hacker than programming and programming articles. I tend not to find the programming articles as interesting, actually.
There's an equilibrium here. Some weeks we get lots of programming articles and nothing else. Some weeks we get only Linux articles, or only Google articles. Some weeks we get a lot of "off topic" stuff.
So far things haven't gotten too out-of-hand. I think things are still ticking along pretty nicely.
That, and:
"The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don't believe in God."
Any Danes or Swedes want to weigh in on this? I don't understand this at all.
Makes perfect sense: they've clearly separated traditions and habits from religion.
The tradition of getting married in church is no different from a habit of screaming "jesus motherfucking christ!" when faced with a scary chance of seeing Texas Tech playing in a national championship game: no reason to call someone religious on both grounds.
OK, but you can't "identify yourself as Christian" and then not believe in the existence of God. That's mainly my confusion, maybe it's a poor choice of words for the writer.
Again, these things are the kinds of definitions that are fuzzy.
People identify themselves (& others) as Jews regardless of their beliefs. In areas where religion has become the current tribal banner such as N. Ireland, India, Iraq, etc., people do something similar.
Often they mean association with a group. Sometimes they mean ancestry/heritage. 'Identify as a Christian' tends to mean different things in different places.
I'd say that in Sweden "identifying" oneself as Christian should be interpreted as having a value-system based on the traditional Christian one.
What would be the alternative to identify oneself as Christian? As atheists? Where non-belief is overwhelmingly common there is little need to spell out you non-belief (that's taken almost for granted) and focus is instead put on what cultural aspects you feel in line with and which you don’t. Although people don't believe in God they still acknowledge that the Scandinavian cultures are heavily influenced by Christianity.
Or even the habit/tradition of getting married full stop.
This is also a tradition that has it's roots in religious heritage.
Many institutions including Universities, States & many others have their roots in a religious foundation. If you asked 200 years ago, they may have been considered completely inalienable from each other.
What happens if you take a Church & surrounds & remove God? You keep the building where a community of mixed age demographics but roughly stable across the long term meet weekly and talk about ways of living ethically or just hang out? People are welcome to join. Community activities are run there. There are a few people responsible for keeping the community together, caring for members in temporary or permanent need, spiritual well being of the members (can mean psychological well being if you're more comfortable with that). They do this full time & are committed to it. This religiony thing has ceremonies & traditions attached to it. Particularly those that are 'public' like weddings & funerals.
What has belief in God got to do with any of that?
Some are christians some are not. I don't know why Danes or Swedes are labeled godless. In the surveys I have seen, most, but not all, Danes say they believe in God.
I know that in many other countries some a lot of people say they are Christian even though they are not very religious.
By the way it has been my experience that people in the US are very hospitable and offer to help strangers. I think more so than in Denmark. Additionally people in the US are more polite, which is nice, even though some people say it's just a superficial thing.
I don't think this article is very good. It states that there is a welfare state in Denmark, but what does that have to do with being nice? The majority are beneficiaries, so they just vote that the minority should fund the system. I don't think it's being nice. The welfare state works on the basis of coercion, not voluntary help.
- a Dane living outside of Denmark
P.S. Are people going to upvote lolcats next? I think lolcats are funny, but for I can go to icanhascheezburger for that.
It makes a lot of sense. Think of Christians who go to Church and are very devoted, but deep inside they do not believe that Hell exists. They will not say it out loud, but they truly believe that Hell does not make sense. It is a bit of a Dichotomy, but Religion, Life, Atheism are all dichotomies themselves.
In the technical sense it makes sense: Atheism means non-belief (or disbelief) in theism (& maybe also deism). You can hold all sorts of supernatural beliefs without a god-equivalent. So you can vaguely believe in souls, reincarnation, afterlife, spiritual energies, qi, prana, karma, darma, etc & still be an atheist.
In the looser sense of common usage, people often call themselves atheists if they do not believe in a formalised or institutionalised set of beliefs & do not explicitly believe in (a) god.
Most atheists, if you probe them a little, turn out to be skeptical agnostics. The atheist position "there absolutely, unequivocally is no god" is untestable scientifically and is therefore a position of faith. In that sense, atheism has religious aspects.
Of all the arguments Richard Dawkins tends to make, this is one of one of the most important. It isn't new or particularly profound.
You needs to take this down a notch from the pure philosophical theory. As an atheist, saying you don't believe in god or that you are sure the He doesn't exist is OK. Even if you couldn't convince Des Carte (he went the other way).
You are sure as you are that celestial teapots or fairies do not exist. Or more to the point, as sure as a Muslim is that Apollo does not drive his chariot across the sky or a Christian is that there are not multiple gods. That is the level where the discussion needs to be conducted.
Not fair to make atheists conduct their analysis at the level where you might be a brain in a vat while eveyone else gets to live in the world where the floor is solid, gravity pulls down & today is followed by tomorrow. The point is to treat the debate just like any other. The existence of god & fertilisation methods for turnips. Use the normal set of tools we use to evaluate everything else.
At the level that you are (rudely) probing atheists, the atheist is agnostic not just about the existence of god, but the existence of dogs, aliens, angels, pyramids & burglars. Certainly agnostic about any of the unseeable uknowable objects of the world. On any level that is meaningful, many skeptical agnostics (after some gentle probing) are atheist.
Any theory that is not falsifiable and has no supporting evidence is false with very high probability. God shares this position with silent black helicopters and invisible people doing experiments on us.
At least, that's one of my answers on the rare occasion I'm prodded. The other has to do with the lack of usefulness. ;)
It may make sense in the technical sense, but I for one have never met someone who claimed to be atheist that believed that humans had a soul that continued after death.
I've met ones that didn't discount it as a possibility, but not any that professed a belief in it.
I think that a lot of the people that actively believe in supernatural things tend not to like to use inflammatory terms like atheist.
But a lot of people that do not believe in god are interested in 'spiritual energies' or something similar that really amounts to a supernatural belief.
I tend to agree. Most people I know who would label themselves as an atheist, myself included, do not have any supernatural beliefs, unless you get ridiculously nitpicky on the semantic side.
The term itself doesn't exclude belief in the "supernatural", but it is (as far as I can tell) claimed largely by people who don't have any belief in the "supernatural".
I don't consider it to be, but it certainly is for a large portion of the USAs population, mainly due to differing interpretations of what the word means, and the common perception (at least in small-town USA) of atheists being amoral as well.
It's kind of like "socialist" - many people think of it as inherently bad, instead of just a different set of relative values. I've lived in Sweden and can say that atheism, agnosticism, and socialism aren't bad, just different.
As you've noted, "atheist" is a very specific term, which simply means one affirms the non-existence of a god or gods. "Skeptic", of course, is probably the word that would best describe one who does not believe in any supernatural things, including god, elves, gremlins, and Eskimos.
Now I am truly confused. Is this more humor I don't understand? Err, well, SwellJoe above identified me as a man and I said I wasn't. What am I missing?
As much as I like Dostoyevsky, this is bullshit in this context.
Perhaps "Where there is no God, as well as the lack of critical thought about what is best for group survival, all is permitted"
I'm an atheist, and I think that all common morality is based off of one concept - consent. I think one can very easily come to logical conclusions about how one should act towards other humans in the absence of a higher power - one just has to think about it.
No you can't. You can not come up with a common morality from first principles. It always must be imposed/started from above. Two people can think about the same very difficult moral situation, and come up with opposite answers - each person thinks the other is a horrible amoral human being. There is no way from logic to decide who is right.
To go with the simplest example: abortion. Is it murder?
How about: is it OK to kill in self defense? What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive? What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself alive? What about kill a baby to save 100 people?
None of these questions can be answered by thinking about them.
Yes, they can. And because I'm bored enough to argue with people on the Internet, I will.
"is it OK to kill in self defense?"
Yes. Someone who threatens your life has removed themself from any concept of morality, like any other person initiating force against anyone else.
"What about kill 10 people to keep yourself alive?"
If they're ten gangsters trying to rob or rape or kill you, see the above. If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion.
"What about killing someone who is not harming you, in order to keep yourself alive?"
Assuming no madman scenario, so no coercion (which would make it the same as the above), no. Not for organs for transplant, nor for money to pay rent, nor for two dollars for a loaf of bread. A person does not gain the right to use force against others to get what they need to live by their inability to get it by other means.
"What about kill a baby to save 100 people?"
I can't see any way this would apply outside of the madman scenario I answered above.
All of these answers are based on my understanding of morality, which is derived from first principles, as you put it. I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail, and besides, the works of Ayn Rand provide a good first approximation to it. (Read the part of Atlas Shrugged nobody actually reads [in before "You mean any of it?"] -- John Galt's radio speech -- and you'll get a good idea. The key phrase, as I recall, is "human life as the standard of value.")
And yet not everyone agrees - pacifists for example. They also thought about it, and came to the opposite conclusion. The only reason you think it's OK is that you live in a culture where that is the norm. Live somewhere else and you'd think something else.
In neither case can you point me to universal principles that would help you decide. I'm not looking for the answer, I'm looking for how to pick the answer.
"If they're ten random people that some madman ordered you to murder for his own reasons, at the cost of your own life if you do not, then morality cannot apply here. There can be no right and wrong in the case of someone who is acting under coercion."
Yes, 10 random people. You say morality cannot apply - yet you have to make a choice: do you kill them or don't you? Which do you choose? And more importantly how do you decide which to choose?
"no" to killing someone not harming you to keep yourself alive:
You said no. But thousands upon thousands of people throughout history chose different. Some people would hold that keeping yourself alive is your utmost responsibility, and trumps anything else. Even today people are not that troubled by killing someone outside their group.
I don't agree - but I can not prove it beyond saying that probably civilization would do better that way - but even that is not necessarily so. Some civilizations are based on strength of arm (and your allies arms). Those might do better then one not based on such - look at Tibet.
Both of the choices you listed match those of american norms and those of the bible (which is where they originated).
"I'm not so bored as to write about it in detail"
But that was the entire question - the examples listed don't need an answer, they are just a point to example how two people might come up with totally different logical answers.
I'm not going to read Atlas Shrugged - I had enough with philosophical books disguised as novels when I read The Sword of Truth series (it started great, then got horrible) - and it's based on Ayn's works.
But, I read a wikipedia summary, and I know for sure that many disagree with her. If she can really come up with a morality from first principles - how can you disagree?
I say you can't. You either pick randomly, or you let someone above you pick. Most people do the second - they do what they grew up with, and their parents did the same, etc, if you go back, for almost the entire world it's ultimately based on the ideas of the bible.
I won't get into all of this argument - it's a good one, and I'm enjoying reading it - but Ayn Rand does one thing that very few other people do: she admits outright what her works are. She never pretends to teach anything other than Objectivism. And while her thoughts are flawed, she has an ability to take complex thoughts and make them easy to follow. Atlas Shrugged is absolutely worth a read.
Ironically, your saying that you don't like Rand because other people don't like her is going along with the very principle that Rand most stands against. Make your own opinions, based on your own logic. Don't follow what other people say. Read it yourself and decide.
Actually I didn't say I didn't like Rand (I don't know enough about her to have an opinion), I just said I wouldn't read the book.
Mainly because it's too long, but also because if I wanted to read on that topic I would prefer a survey, plus I don't like philosophy books masquerading as fiction.
I'm glad you are enjoying reading about this, but it seems to have stopped. Plus I got some downmods, so I guess other people are not enjoying it quite as much.
By "common morality", I did not mean a base set of "this is right, this is wrong" absolutes. I meant that in all existing moral codes, the base parts of them are derived from the concept of consent.
Your "simplest" example is a can of worms that I don't even want to try to open. The answer to that depends on whether or not you consider a fetus to be human, or at what stage you do.
In most cases such as your examples, there are no "moral" choices by my definition. Ending the life of another, thinking, capable of consent persons life is never a moral action. It may be the "best" choice, or it may be the choice that leads to the least breaking of the "consent" rule, but that does not make it moral - consent is still being broken.
As a general rule, I would think that if someone has taken actions that imply that they do not care about the consent-based groundings of morality, then they should be treated as if those rules do not apply to them. That does not mean that breaking those rules for that person is moral, but that it shouldn't weigh heavily on ones conscience.
My argument is mainly that the varying moral codes are based on the idea that non-consensual action should be avoided. There are very few, if any, cultures that consider cold-blooded murder to not be immoral - or rape, or thievery, etc. This makes sense in the context of group survival.
EDIT: Also, assuming you're responding in part to my assertion that "one can very easily come to logical conclusions about how one should act towards other humans in the absence of a higher power", I do not see how the existence of logical conundrums counter that. For the vast majority of human interactions, the vast majority of people will arrive at the conclusion that it is best overall to follow the "golden rule" - which is more or less an alternate expression of "don't break others consent" - through the process of critical analysis - edge cases do not change that.
That's a pretty good answer (the best so far from all the people I've asked) - but it's also a non-answer. Which you acknowledge, which is why is's a good answer.
You are right that most of the time that's enough. But I disagree about the fact the edge cases don't matter.
They matter because they happen, and they happen a lot.
You can not just ignore them - you have to pick something.
And people do, and other people argue, and ultimately the person with the most power (or numbers) wins.
And then of course you have lot of yelling, like right now in california. People are very happy with the democratic process - until they loose.
And since I'm talking about it - that's not an issue of allowing people to do what they want. It's an issue of forcing other to recognize something they don't want to. That's one of your edge cases - can you do that? Can you go against someones will and make them do something because you think it's better?
A few decades ago black-white marriage went through the same process and said "allow it", but this time we get a different result. It seems pretty random to me. Which is what I expect because there is no guiding principle you can look to.
Anyway, getting back on topic.
You always have to "break others consent" - I don't want trucks driving by my house, the gov says they may. You just broke my consent.
I don't want to go into quarantine - but I have to. Again - one of those edge cases when you have to balance the consent of multiple people.
They happen a lot. I can understand saying "I don't know" - but you can not call your code complete without them.
I don't think that edge cases like you described happen very often at all.
You're right, you always do have to break others consent. Unlike what it seems that you think, I do not think that all actions need to be evaluated in the context of morality.
You don't want trucks driving by your house, but people driving the trucks don't know that. Furthermore, you have the option of moving to an area in which they won't - and someone driving a truck by your house causes no measurable negative effect on yourself, and is arguably not something you should even have an opinion on (in my opinion).
Meh, this is one of those issues that it's hard to really explain my full views on online without writing something close in length to that of a novel. The consent-based rule for dealing with other people is a generally applicable rule for direct interaction - not for indirect.
(Also, do you actually have to go into quarantine? Or was that just an example? If you do, I'm sure it's for good reason, and I can't think of a valid reason that you would be unwilling to do so. Of course this depends on whether or not you view a purely individualistic mindset as a valid one, or what valid means, another messy question.)
Again, I don't think that there are absolutes in answering questions such as "what is moral". There's too much abstraction over that base concept of consent - and once you go past simple human-to-human interaction, things get very messy.
I also don't think that morality coming "from above" is any more valid than how I view it. There are certainly no moral codes that describe what is moral in every possible situation, and there will always be ambiguities - a lot of this, IMO, has to do with the nature and propagation of human culture, and with how our brains (and personalities) develop - which is a complex web of dependencies and influences, weights, values, and patterns.
The above stuff, in combination with other things, makes me lean towards thinking that morality is an invalid concept - that it doesn't really exist at all. The way that I view what is moral and what is not is based on a viewpoint that views all humans capable of thinking for themselves as equal beings, and the assumption that we should act in such a way that attempts to benefit the majority of humans. The reason that I feel that that is "correct" is something of a tautology, and I am aware of that - and aware that others may come to other conclusions about the ways that it is appropriate for humans to interact.
Can I force someone to recognize something they don't want to? No. Can I go against someones will and make them do something because I think it's "better"? Depending on the situation, yes - particularly in situations involving physical violence.
As an example, I once ran up and brained a neo-nazi with my combat boots. He, and another neo-nazi were beating down a scrawny black kid. I don't feel that that was an inappropriate action, as they were acting in such a way that it was apparent that they didn't give a shit about what the black kid thought about getting in a fight. Was it a moral action, in my view? No, but then again very few actions end up being purely moral in my view.
I'm not concerned with aligning myself with a concept of morality - I simply evaluate my possibilities of action, based on my experiences, and try to choose the course of action that is best for everyones (at least for everyone in my circle of influence) ease of survival. Even that is, admittedly, a gross oversimplification.
I'm very close to thinking that people should stop worrying about morality at all, and start only worrying about the well-being of humanity. For a lot of people, questions of morality end up banning consenting actions between adults - which I think is rather ridiculous.
Anyhow, yeah - it's a messy issue. I don't expect to be able to fully and eloquently express my views on the matter anytime soon, but I'm still young. Who knows. I'm sure my view on the matter will evolve much like my views on everything else as I grow older as well.
So, the conclusion of the article is that, in the US, religion causes athiests to be immoral. That's one of the more ludicrous statements I've heard: all those poor athiests unable to take responsibility for their own actions.
I'm not even sure what we're debating. The entire article is just anecdotal evidence that completely fails to make a point.
I mean, I'll throw my hat in. I'm an atheist and a pretty big jackass. I'd sooner burn a church down with everyone inside than donate to it; I'm pretty much as amoral as they come and don't regret any of the morally "bad" things I've done in my life.
The point was that belonging to a community is more important to the strength of your moral compass than your religion of lack of it and that in America, religion fosters community.
That's an extremely simple minded way of thinking.
First of all it's impossible to know which is correct. So instead you look at the effect on people.
Second truth isn't everything - it looks that way, but when you run a civilization entirely on truth it fails, and can not survive.
I have a feeling you're not going to understand this, it took me years to understand it - I wanted only truth, and was utterly miserable, until I understood that truth isn't everything (and I'm not talking about religion BTW).
Sometimes believing something that is wrong gives a better outcome. Which is more important? The truth? Or the outcome?
Don't answer quickly - philosophers have been arguing about this for millennia. I chose truth and was miserable. I recently changed my mind.
"Second truth isn't everything - it looks that way, but when you run a civilization entirely on truth it fails, and can not survive."
When you run a civilization (whatever "running a civilization" means) based entirely on truth (the facts of reality) it cannot survive? How's that? And, by the way, what's the alternative to that? Lies, wishes, and general irrationality? How's that working out?
Just to give you a quick example of what I mean - imagine if police knew every single time you didn't come to a complete stop, or sped up to make a yellow light.
Or if people around you knew every single thing you thought about them. Or if your parents knew every time you misbehaved.
Civilization would not survive such a thing. You need the lies. A world where people could not (or would not) ever lie would not function.
There are all sorts of issues. This one is important to quite a few people.
'what produces a better moral compass' is not very relevant to you if you are trying to find a rational basis for you beliefs or a lack thereof. It is relevant if you are an American that fears the rise of atheism or atheist politicians, judges or cops. It is relevant if you are an agnostic that can't or won't decide on a position but needs to decide if a 'religious foundation' is better for their kids.
Hey, now that brings about an interesting question: If we were to discover the correct view of the universe, but that view would necessarily brings about our own demise, do we tell the world the correct view?
This widely quoted phrase (In Russian: Если Бога нет, то всё дозволено) is commonly attributed to Brothers Karamazov. Except it is not anywhere in there. I just spent a good half poring over the original text chapter by chapter and nothing. Nada. Doesn't exist.
My biggest problem however is not the veracity of the quote. It's the intellectual dishonesty of taking words from a fictional character and attributing them to Dostoevsky himself. Although I should not be surprised. Faith and the inability to distinguish between reality and fiction go hand in hand, don't they?
Some of the worst serial-killers were deeply religious ("even after all I did, I know God forgives all"); doesn't that hint that you don't need to be religious to be nice?
Part of the problem is that the distinction here is between "religious" and "atheist", not taking into account the many different forms "religion" takes, and the different degrees to which it can be applied. There are many religions out there that believe decidedly un-nice things (such as your serial killer).
If someone decided to believe something completely wacko (like scientology) and then called it a religion; does that reflect meaningfully on the other religions? If someone called themselves a "Christian" or "Buddhist", but then did something obviously un-Christian, un-Buddhist, and un-nice, does it mean that Christianity or Buddhism are necessarily evil or un-nice? The same can be said for atheism. Hitler was not nice; if he had applied Christianity or Scientology, would he have turned out better? No way to tell.
I would say that you have to evaluate each person individually, and how they apply their religion, and then see whether it made a positive or negative difference in that one case. Whether supposedly "religious" people either do or do not behave better or worse than their neighbors doesn't have much significance beyond their specific case. Even then, it is hard to know how they would have turned out otherwise.
No one ever hears about the religious people who didn't become serial killers because of their religion, precisely because they didn't, and there is no way to know that they would have.
Every generalization is wrong.
The label "religion" poisons (or at least confuses) everything.
If a particular religion were seriously applied to its fullest, should it make a person better or not? This method helps separate individual variability from the actual effects of religion.
Note that many religions include evangelism or actual belief as part of application, which many may not consider "nice". If you believe your religion, it often means that you don't believe another person's, and that could be construed as intolerant, and thus un-nice.
Therefore, you may consider it to be impossible for religion to make a person "nice", since it often comes with these nasty side effects. In that case, you are probably also being intolerant and un-nice yourself.
From what I can tell, there are several religions (such as Christianity) that require you to be a "better" person if you actually apply it. In that sense, then yes, religion can make you a better person. Does that mean that you can't be a "good" person without religion? Of course not.
At the same time, Christianity states that it is impossible to apply Christianity without divine intervention, which brings into question whether "religion" itself makes you better, or God. Again, that doesn't mean that you can't be nice without God, only that it is (purportedly) impossible to reach the standards required by Christianity without His help.
There are also religions that arguably neither improve nor hurt someone's "goodness." Atheism is probably one of these. Nothing about atheism says that you need to be nicer than you are, but it doesn't make you more evil either.
And finally, there are some "religions" that have (according to everyone else, of course) entirely bad or evil effects when applied. The human sacrificial tendencies of the Aztecs were arguably in this category.
So, "religion" in general neither makes one nice or bad. Only specific religions, applied in a specific way have that result. And even then, who defines "good" or "bad"?
None of this belongs on HN though; religion is too close to the base of one's entire thought structure and world view, and thus debates concerning it are almost entirely inflammatory and unlikely to positively change either side's opinions.
"If someone called themselves a "Christian" or "Buddhist", but then did something obviously un-Christian, un-Buddhist, and un-nice, does it mean that Christianity or Buddhism are necessarily evil or un-nice?"
Giving a vague definition to some philosophy/ideology/methodology then claiming the good things that arise out are inherent in it while saying the bad things that come out of it are external. Classic. (Sorry, I can't for the life of me express this clearly. There was an article on Agile recently that said it better than I can).
This demonstrates how any atheism vs. religion debate has a short fused, built-in self-destruct mechanism.
"All the serial killers are religious!" "All the genocidal Communists were atheists!" Etc.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that all atheism/religion discussions on the Internet (even Hacker News) are guaranteed to get real stupid, real fast.
This argument came up on reddit. I think the reason this happens is that there's a certain mindset that says that absolute truth is extremely simple, and that deviance from that truth is a black-and-white affair. On Hacker News, we see mostly the atheist side of this black-and-white spectrum: the sort that denies religion any benefit, and which denounces people who disagree as insidious and festering.
That mindset appeals to programmers, in part because it's a very lazy mindset that allows you to quickly judge complex things and focus on the very specific thing that you care to focus on. It's the same mindset that encourages blind libertarianism. The problem with it is that it discourages intellectual discussion and leads to flame wars. That's what brought reddit down: a mass of people who were willing to instantly denounce people, and who led to a very hive-mind situation.
It's the most easily reached stable equilibrium since no actual evidence pro or contra can be produced that would be acceptable to both parties to the debate.
Most religions claim some level of enlightenment in showing grace over condemning another person's morality. The effects of religion on morality should, by definition, be irrelevant to atheists.
I don't know why my post was modded down. Apparently atheists are highly discriminated against, even within "enlightened" groups.
To my astonishment a very recent Gallup poll indicated that, of many groupings, atheists were _least_ likely to be elected President of the US (e.g., _well_ behind Mormons, homosexuals, 72-year-olds, etc.):
We've never had an atheist president, but we've had deists (whom most evangelicals would discount as Christians) including Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. We've also had Unitarian presidents, such as John Adams.
