I don't want to hijack the thread here, but I think there are two kinds of knowledge: empirical and logical. Empirically, I agree, we're very ignorant. However, logically we can prove some things that are a priori true - two things equal to a third are equal to each other, two contradictory things cannot be simultaneously true, and so forth. These things don't depend on ignorance or knowledge, they are self-evident. The existence of god, to me, falls into the second category. I don't think we'll ever be able to explore the universe to such a degree that we can say "Nope, no sign of a god anywhere!" but I do think we can formulate logical proofs of non-existence.

Bingle

Very well said. I am impressed.

Sorry to follow this tangent, but I disagree. Any logical arguments for the non-existence of god can be matched by logical arguments for the existence of god, precisely because the definition of god is not a certainty. It may be that logic can be used to prove the non-existence of some specific interpretation of god, but equally, logic can be used to prove the existence of some other specific interpretation of god.

Essentially, either viewpoint (yes god, no god) is a viewpoint of faith.

That's true - logic can be used to prove anything. However, if I accept your premises as valid, and you use logical reasoning to reach a conclusion from those premises, that conclusion must be valid. Where people disagree is on the premises. So all we have to do is agree on a set of premises before we begin ;-)

However, there's still a definite difference between the two types of knowledge, and I just want people to be careful when they talk about atheism, as I feel it's more widely misunderstood than any religion.

Bingle

Calling people "pigs" is extremely unfair to pigs. Pigs are a much more intelligent lifeform....

I don't really believe in any higher being. I'm not of any particular party affiliation, either... just whoever supports most of what I believe in.

Gay marriage? Doesn't bother or affect me at all, go for it.

Abortion? Abortions are necessary. The less stupid people who have kids, the better.

Gun Control? I think I should legally be able to own an Uzi if I so choose.

Prostitution? Why not? It's just sex. Who cares if you pay for it? You do the same when you go pick up some woman in a bar, buy her a drink, then take her home for a one night stand.

Marijuana? Legalize. It's relaxing. I actually learned a lot more in high school while stoned than I did not stoned :) Light up a joint, sit in my room and read books. People should have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. Legalize it, tax the hell out of it. Imagine paying $20 for a pack of joints. Cheaper than buying it off the streets AND it'll be legal. Not to mention that excessive tax could go toward better uses. If you don't like it, don't use it and don't worry about it. This is FAR from the cause of your troubles.

Other drugs? I don't see why these should be illegal either. If someone wants to do coke, they'll do coke regardless of if it's legal or not. If you're willing to put a substance in your body, better be prepared for the consequences. It just seems silly to me for us to control what other people do to themselves. "I wanna use heroin." "No, don't do that. It's bad." "But I want to." "No. Illegal." Doesn't make any sense.

Euthanasia? Same with prostitution, drugs, and abortions - it's your body. Do to it as you wish for any reason or no reason at all. None of my business.

The problem is that you can't prove that EITHER has value over the other. You say that he places a higher value on repression, where it is equally valid to say that he sees the inherent value of repression that many people want to ignore. Maybe his view is "balance" between the two, and most typically liberal views value expression more than repression.

There are atheist conservatives. Maybe it is semantics, but the theory that "If it doesn't hurt me or infringe on my personal liberties, then I am OK with it" is not necessarily liberal. I would call that conservative. It's probably just me, but I don't think most bedrock "conservative" christians are really very conservative as it relates to personal freedom.

Gay marriage--I personally prefer to allow civil unions, but don't really care. It's a state issue. I agree with letting states ban it if they want to. The Mass. Supreme Court is crazy--worst kind of liberal thinking.

Abortion--I'm against it and would vote to ban it in my state if it were on the ballot. It should be an electoral or legislative state issue. Roe v. Wade is bad law. I don't mean bad because I don't like the outcome, its bad constitutional law. Again, worst kind of liberal thinking.

Gun control--finally, a right that actually is in the constitution. Fire away.

Prostitution--state issue--go for it. Get it done locally and increase tourism.

Marijuana--same as prostitution. If you are going to get it on the ballot, go for the prostitution too.

Euthanasia--state issue--let the people decide. I would vote for it with some controls--probably require a knowing consent and two doctors signatures re: condition, and maybe judicial review at the request of family or health care provider--not to decide if o.k., just to make sure rules have been followed.

Ustwo, your outlook comes very close to my own. I think the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible, fiscally and socially. Our government should start from the premise that everything is legal and then only restrict those activities that are absolutely necessary. I know it all depends on where you draw the line but it should always err to the side of freedom. Just because something is not good for you does not mean there should always be a law against it.
Our government is currently trying to do too much to take care of us which is why it is so big and why we have to work half a year in bondage.

So the following positions regarding social issues follow:

Gay Marriage - make no laws restricting it

Gun Control - make no laws banning it, I have a feeling the founding fathers would even let us have automatic weapons if they were voting today, probably not nukes or surface to air missles etc...

Abortion - in general this should be left up to the woman. I think it is better to err to the side of the woman's freedom than the fetus's freedom.

Drugs - make no laws banning most recreational drugs: nicotine, caffine, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, etc...

Seat Belt and Helmet Laws - get rid of them, except on public transportation

Smoking Bans - allow retail businesses (bars, restaurants, etc..) to make their own rules

Pornography - make no laws banning, except for child porn.

Marrige is none of the govenment's damned business. It's a religious instituion. The government should offer civil unions to couples, and marrige can be a religious thing. (A civil union would be the same thing as a legal marrige, only called a civil union, and ofered to any pair of people)

Legalize, but regulate prostitution.

Legalize posession and usage of everything. Regulate sales.

I consider myself Social Libral, but finicialy Conservitive.

I am borderline Agnostic/Atheist, i generally believe in nothing on a spiritual level but im always open to the possibility i may be wrong. I hold many conservative values however, and often feel as i'm alone outside the traditional conservative circles.

In order of the questions asked, I am against Gay Marriage, i have no problem with civil unions and partner rights, I do have a problem with the redefining of words and traditions. On a civil level i do believe a Gay civil partnership should be entitled to all the perks and benefits as a straight married couple. However i do think that the two unions should not be defined under the same terms. When something people hold a certain value with is compromised it infringes on the people who hold that value like couples and marriage. However i do not understand why a union in the gay community cannot be defined in a manner that gives homosexual couples the same sort of value without taking that same concept away from heterosexual couples. I agree that civil union doesnt have the attractive ring "marriage" does but the only reason "marriage" as a concept holds value anyway is due to the sacred nature of the concept imposed upon it by religions. I think a lot of the objection about Homosexual Unions would dissapear simply by keeping the definition but changing its name.

On the subject of abortion i am most often against it. First and foremost regardless of who did what in MOST cases pregnancy is a result of consensual sex between two persons. In this regard i think being responsible for ones own actions would go a long way. This day and age we have so many freedoms and everything in society is permissible. One thing about the propriety of the decades before was that people cared about how society looked on them, like religion does to many, it kept people on their best behavior. People have a careless attitude in these times that no matter what a person does wrong, no one ever points at them self. Its always this person or that persons fault. I feel that if you cannot deal with the consequences of a sexual lifestyle, and cannot deal with the responsibility to prevent the possible consequences, that you should not be allowed to have resources available to "clean up your mess". I also feel the feminist movement tries to picj and choose the easy things and let everyone else pay for it. If you want to say the government has no right saying what a woman can do with her body, then i say a woman has no right asking the government to make taxpayers pay for those secret things she wishes to do to her body. And if women want equal rights from the government then a woman should extend those equal rights to the fathers of the children they wish to abort. This country is far to comfortable with passing the burden of responsibility of its irresponsible citizens onto the backs of its responsible ones. I do think that there need to be laws on these things until time people can handle the responsibilities of such freedoms without asking for a handout to exercise those freedoms.

As far as the gun control issue, the idea of limiting and restricting the public from possessing firearms does nothing to stop the criminals in this country from carrying guns. Guns used in crime are seldom registered to the one holding the gun, most times the identifying numbers are removed. Gun control does not work for the most part. For every case where a registered gun points to the guilty, there are hundreds and thousands of crimes where it does nothing.

I think Prostitution and Illegal Drugs can be dealt with in the same explanation. The fact that these two issues are illegal is exactly what makes them dangerous, threatening and a social problem. Simply by regulating both of these things would remove not only money and control from the criminal elements involved, but both would turn multi million dollar industries into taxable revenue for the government. Drugs as a controlled substance would ensure FDA regulations providing not only safer to the users. Prostitution would give not only safty to the women who chose it as a profession but would entitle them to benefits and workers rights as they have in Las Vegas.

the best thing about this thread was HalX saying "by the end of Kerry's term". Oh, how little we knew back then...

In my everyday life, I would be considered very conservative. No drugs, no beer, no sex before marriage, no swearing, no abortions, hate taxes, like guns, everything done in public is censored.

In my own world in my head, and the world I would like to live in: Drugs are accepted and you can do them in a safe environment, alcohol is ok (just so you don't hurt anybody else), sex is common, don't need guns (but only people who really need guns have them), more people have abortions instead of bringing unwanted kids in to the world, full nudity on TV and magazine ads, free uncensored internet throughout the country, lots of social programs that just work.