Yet another poll

[---]

Are you trying to gauge the difference in morality between theists and non-theists? Surely this poll is too dramatic in it's utilitarian starkness?

I remember reading a book about Britain during the first world war and it explained how if one were to be a conscientious objector it was allowed if the person was strongly religious, however atheists were either shot or imprisoned - usually first the latter then the former..

They left them in freezing cold cells in the direst of conditions with a uniform laying next to them - sooner or later most broke and put on the uniform, of the ones that didn't many perished there in the cells. Of course the chance of perishing on the battefield was equal if not greater.

The rationale was that if you were an atheist you couldn't have a conscience and therefore couldn't object to the war on moral grounds.

You'll forgive me I can't vote in your poll as I don't understand what you're trying to get at exactly or what question you are posing yourself - that and it's too loaded for me.

i can tell you this though - I wouldn't 'sacrifice' -(a byword for murder in this instance, I believe) a child's life to end the Aids epidemic, as horrendous an effect as it has on countless childrens' lives. I guess I'm a shoddy utilitarian when it comes down to it.

There's still hope though.. - Joe Blow put this up on TIU : http://www.thelocal.se/16862/20090112/