If sex was immoral then we wouldn't be around here to discuss such a ridiculous question because the human race would be extinct.

To say that the war had little bearing isn't quite correct, but it's the side I'm most aligned with. Obama was able to successfully portray his intelligence and innate capability for leadership while on the campaign trail. These, combined with the huge "not a Republican" factor weighed heavily on his victory.

Abu Ghraib had an affect in how Iraqis viewed Americans and how insurgents viewed fighting. This affected the direction the Iraq war took, which could be attributed to American's negative association with the Republican party, who are seen as responsible.

To say that the Abu Ghraib photos were the biggest single factor in the election is shortsighted and undermines not only the President-elect's campaign, but the American people's ability to elect a leader based on rational reasons (which, given the past 8 years, might not be too far off). In conclusion, Led Zeppelin rules.

There is room for flaws in all knowledge. There is no such thing as an absolute certainty, only a very high measure of certainty. To say that if one believes there is no God without knowing the entirety of the universe "requires faith" is absurd.

We live by the fact that every day the sun will rise. Our entire society and planet is based on that fact even though there is a small measure of possibility that it might not happen. I don't mean to suppress the questioning of reality or the status quo (strangely, religion is the status quo), I only mean to point out that the question is more about the proper use of the word "faith" rather than the word "atheism".

Atheism is the absence of religion, which I guess can crudely be used in place of "faith". It is not a religion itself, much like how zero is a placeholder for the absence of a number, although it is not a number itself. In conclusion, Led Zeppelin rules.