Vote in some of the dozens of polls dealing with: separation of church and state, ethics, abortion, science, evolution, the Ten Commandments, and more.
This week, I'd like to find out what you think about the overall writing on the site. Do you tend to find it too difficult and dense, too easy and simplistic, or just about right?
Last week I asked about how often you visit the site; this week, I'd like you to tell me how you originally found out about the site. Did someone send you a link? Did you get here via a search engine like Google or perhaps via a link on another site? This is assuming that you still remember, of course.
In previous polls I've asked you what you do and do not like about the site; this week, I'd like you to tell me how often you visit the site. Are you a daily visitor or do you only stop by weekly? Do you visit the site itself or do you simply keep track of new material via an RSS reader?
In the previous two polls I asked about which parts of the site you liked the most and which you thought needed the most improvement; this week, I'd like you to check off the two or three subjects I cover which you would like to see more of. For example, would you rather see more about atheism and arguments dealing with the existence of god or more general material on philosophy and logic?
In this first poll I asked you about what you liked most on this site; this week, I'd like you to check off the two or three parts of the site which you think need the most improvement.
I would really like to know more about what people like most and least about the site as it currently is. In this first poll, please check off two or three of the parts of the site which you like the most.
Most anti-choice activists support exemptions to bans on abortions that cover the life or health of the mother, rape, and incest. It's rare for laws criminalizing abortion not to provide exemptions for rape and incest; it's unheard of for them not to provide exemptions for the life of the mother. Such exemptions are arguably inconsistent with anti-choice rhetoric and principles.
It's not unusual to hear about conflicts between science and religion - there's evolution & creationism, stem-cell research, cloning, and the list can just keep going on and on. But is there a real conflict between science and religion - and, if so, is it getting worse or better?
Many Christians offer "Pascal's Wager" as a reason to believe in their god. According to this argument, it's safer to "bet" that their god exists than to live as if it didn't exist. If you accepted that you had to "bet" on some god or religion, what would you bet on?
In what appears to be an effort not to fall behind in the victimization arms race, Vatican leaders are trying to push for international adoption of the term "Christophobia," an analogue to something like anti-Semitism or homophobia. Do you think that such a thing really exists?
There are complaints about how some Muslims proclaim Islam as a "religion of peace" even as so many other Muslims advocate war and violence. But what about Christianity? Jesus was supposed to be the "Prince of Peace," but there are many Christians openly and unashamedly advocating war and violence.
Should Israel pull out of the Gaza Strip, taking Jewish settlers with them? Most people around the world would probably go along with that idea. Even most people in Israel support it. Religious extremists in Israel do not, however, and they encouraging civil disobedience, resistance, and even violence.
There are complaints about how some Muslims proclaim Islam as a "religion of peace" even as so many other Muslims advocate war and violence. But what about Christianity? Jesus was supposed to be the "Prince of Peace," but there are many Christians openly and unashamedly advocating war and violence.
In what appears to be an effort not to fall behind in the victimization arms race, Vatican leaders are trying to push for international adoption of the term "Christophobia," an analogue to something like anti-Semitism or homophobia. Do you think that such a thing really exists?
Many regard their sexuality - whether their sexual orientation or their sexual behavior - to be private matters that shouldn't be the subject of state control, regulation, or interference. Do you agree?
Both the Christian Right and the Republican Party talk a lot about morality: restoring morality to America, improving people's morality, etc. If you think about it, though, they aren't really talking about 'morality' in general. They're talking about sex.
Zoroastrianism has had a significant impact on the major western religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Much that is part of those religions would be unthinkable without the prior influence of Zoroastrianism. Does it matter if is disappears?
Police can rub an object with a special cloth, test the cloth, and determine if the object has been in contact with things like illegal drugs. Police want the authority to do this and use positive test results as 'probable cause' for searching your home. Do you think that's acceptable?
There are quite a few conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists who are convinced that Christians are being persecuted in America. It's true that at times Christians aren't treated very well, but does this rise to the level of genuine persecution?
Much of what passes for Christianity today seems to be more culturally determined than scripturally determined and churches are thus far more political institutions than they are religious ones. Do you agree?
According to Jerry Falwell, the Christian Right basically controls the Republican Party. It's not simply that they have a lot of influence, but that the GOP can't do anything without the approval of religious conservatives. Do you agree?
A common Christian argument says that one should believe in God because it's too much of a chance not to believe. We can turn it around: why take the chance that the Norse Valhalla doesn't exist? Is it really worth the risk?
One of the problems with the media today is that the so-called journalists often don't make an effort to evaluate the credibility of the claims being made. Indeed, they sometimes deny that they have any obligation to evaluate the credibility of what they report. Is that justified?
Many liberal and moderate Christians are concerned over the way conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have appropriated religious language, making it appear as though 'real' Christians must support particular political programs, patriotic agendas, and religious dogmas. Have they hijacked Christianity?
George Washington wrote that 'Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.' Do you agree with this assessment?
Salvation Army bell ringers are a common feature at American stores during the holidays, but not at Target. They decided to enforce their 'no solicitation' policy fairly and consistently rather than give them special privileges. Is this a good idea?
There are a lot of different ways to define religion. Some insist that without a belief in some god, a belief system cannot be a religion. Others argue that religions are defined by having beliefs in things like sacred spaces and scriptures. What elements do you think are required to have a religion?
There is a story that circulates in some places that the American Civil War wasn't really about slavery - instead, it was about Northern aggression, taxes, tariffs, that sort of thing. Is there any truth to this?
There is a common complaint from conservatives that there is too much 'liberal bias' in the American media today. What exactly is meant by 'bias' and does it really exist?
Many nonbelievers and other critics treat religion like a crutch for those who cannot otherwise handle life without comforting beliefs. If that is at all true, however, there is still the question of whether religion is a necessary crutch. After all, some crutches are needed. Is religion one of them?
