romansh

As a non USA resident I won't vote but not surprisingly perhaps I will express an opinion. No way I would vote for any of the Republicans ... they have lost their way since the mid eighties. And the part that saddens me is they have dragged the Democrats to the right with them. I would likely vote Hilary, not because I agree with her ideals, it is simply that I think she would have a better chance moving the US's politics closer to the "centre" than Bernie. Political Compass is an interesting site ... it gives a slightly left leaning view of things in my view, but it has an interesting questionnaire ... I typically score about -4, -4 on it. Here is the site's take on the primaries. And here is the 2012 US election, or at least their viewpoint. And if we compare it to the 2008 election we can see Obama has been pulled way over during his first term.

Thanks Fatherman I found this quote on the Buddhism page at Religious Tolerance Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. I think this quote, ostensibly by Buddha not that it matters by who (we are all Buddha?), epitomizes the agnostic spirit. And there is much that I disagree with when it comes to Buddhism (at least the little I know of it). Incidentally the site is a useful to get a quick overview of a whole bunch of world views.

Thank you Joseph I think a very prudent response ;-)

When a thread goes off topic rather than just hiding the posts, open an appropriate thread or move the posts to a more appropriate thread if one exists. This is common practice on most fora. I would be surprised if the tools do not exist already to do this. Also I can't help thinking that the word hijacked has negative connotations. Whilst personally I am not bothered by it, those that have a need of "a safe place" to express their ideas might wonder about such emotive language and I can't help but think imply another's intentionality. Finally ... fora are places or a 'fiery furnace' to strengthen and refine ideas, concepts and beliefs. So long as this is done "respectfully" I essentially see no problem. sincerely rom.

But I think it has to come with a recognition we do make choices (consciously or otherwise). You and I have ended up on the atheistic side of the debate. Others on the theistic. Some of us are more ardent when we vocalize our positions than others. Militant moderation is OK for awhile. Acceptance of the things we might find abhorrent is a bit more tricky.

Being an eddy in an unfolding universe is or at least can be considered a gift. At least in my book.

I like the term agnostic when it is used to describe how we handle knowledge ... not just with respect to God and gods, but with respect to much wider aspect of our lives. I think agnosticism is a far more "powerful" concept than dealing with our beliefs. For me it throws into our lives a significant amount of skepticism and possibly a realization we make choices despite of our uncertainty. Consequently we might take care with our beliefs and how we impose them on others. Is this a gift?

The majority of atheists I come in contact with will categorically deny Abrahamic and perhaps other traditional Gods. Probably as do you and I. I find they are more circumspect around less well defined gods, for example panentheism and deism. I like the concept of ignosticism (as well as agnosticism). We "should" risk being accused of being semantic when it comes to God and gods in general. And perhaps with other terms like spiritual and transcendent.

I think most atheists are open minded. I think we need not to confound what is quite often spirited attacks on dogmatic religious beliefs. What do we mean by God? A deist god; kick started everything and then "buggered off"? A panentheistic god, that is in everything and is manipulating the materialist world? Or a more personal god that gives us "gifts" ... to keep this vaguely on topic. Whereas in pantheism where everything is god ... and here belief meets atheism. I have a sneaking respect for pantheism ... where both worlds meet and the debate is purely semantic and emotional. By saying you think atheists are not open minded about god, I question whether you are open minded about atheists? Think of Bertrand Russell, a poster boy for atheism ... he said something like before a philosophical audience he would call himself an agnostic and before the general public he would call himself an atheist to give the right impression. I suspect we live our lives atheistically Paul, and call ourselves agnostics.

An atheist on the Dawkins' Scale? I think that scale is simplistic, but to answer your question it is possibly 4 and upwards. 7 being a strong atheist and the other numbers being a weak atheist. Remember Paul ... that I think you don't choose your beliefs in the sense today I will be a strong atheist and at 4 pm tomorrow I will be an agnostic theist. (somebody who understands they don't have convincing evidence but believes anyway). Our beliefs creep up on us overtime. Children may be an exception, they tend to believe much of what their parents tell them.

Paul Dawkins on the possibility of god http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Paul Here you propagate the myth that atheists as a class are not open minded. I call myself an agnostic ... more because it is the way I handle "knowledge" rather than any beliefs I may or may not hold.

I wasn't referring to the film of that name. I meant "shades of grey" in sense of seeing more options than just the absolutes (moral action vs immoral action). Like for example, scale from 0 to 100 would be much better. I was referring to the fact that you seem to insist that morality must be decided in a on/off - manner when an action is either moral or not. I know you were not referring to the book, but I was. Where is the film on your morality scale and why would some see it as depraved? So what are the 0 and 100 on your behaviourally anchored rating scale? "Being honest" is not same thing as "agreeing with you". Just for info. I was referring to being honest with oneself. Chamberlains decision was, in hindsight, at least poor judgement of the situation. I don't know what his motives were, and from moral point of view, that's usually what makes a lot of difference. Like for example, was he a peace-loving person, or a coward, or simply a calculating, cynical pragmatist who thought war would be too costly for his other goals and thus wanted to avoid it. Nobody probably will ever know that side of the story, since participants have been dead for a long time and we can only guess. So where was Chamberlain in your behaviourally anchored rating scale? Or does morality even enter into the arena? What about the government that takes a country into war where is that in your rating scale? A few years ago we had a person off his meds hack off somebody's head with a knife on a greyhound bus. Where do we put that on your scale? Recently he got released from psychiatric hospital, people are up in arms so to speak. How moral is it that he should get an early release? What I am actually claiming is actions are not actually moral or immoral and that there is not some duality with an imaginary scale in between. The concept of morality is an illusion if you like.

Jack of Spades What about shades of grey? 50? Are the book and film immoral, "good", prudent etc? Totally in the eye of the beholder. What lessons about prudence can we learn from the film? Real life morals aren't, imo, a cases of "right" and "wrong" but rather cases of "How messed up this is in a scale from 0 to 100?". Are we arguing for a post modernist/relativist view here? Again if I meet my goals without too much collateral damage is that moral? Historically these situations are decided by force. Yep the winners get to decide whether an action was moral or not. Of course later revisionists might get to revise the history. Philoshopically, I can't really say much about it. And yet it is a philosophical question. If we try to keep it practical, with some implications to everyday life, such cases are rather rare. Usually, like in case of murderous psychos, the case is not so much that one individual have very different idea of morality, but rather that the individuals are uninterested of following *any* standards of established morality. In everyday life I can go about my life quite happily amorally. To the outside person I could appear to be quite moral. Except of course if a devout Christian might ask me "do I believe in Jesus?" At that point I appear less moral in those eyes, because apparently I can't be moral without the appropriate beliefs. I think ownership of land is a good historical example, when two cultures with different view on ownership of land encounter (one nomadic, and other one which believes that individuals can own a piece of land), there will be a conflict. This is an interesting one for me. I sometimes listen to native elders speaking of their special affinity for the land or something similar. I was born in Canada, went to the UK at a very young age, spent all my formative years in there and then some. Worked in South Africa for six and returned to Canada for the last thirty years. My ancestors left Africa some 150 000 years ago, give or take. They wandered through Asia and Europe and ended up in the Baltic Sates. We are all nomadic, but on different time scales. But even in those conflicts, to me it's clear that some individuals acted in more moral fashion than others. Like for example, by trying to find a compromise or by trying to make agreements between different views to avoid violence. Sometimes violence is seen as moral sometimes as not. Neville Chamberlin appeased Hitler to avoid violence to have peace for our time. Was that moral? I think looking back on history it is wiser or perhaps more prudent not to describe events as moral or immoral. Be honest, and just say it does or does not agree with your wants. Describing something as immoral is an opportunity to blame and then forgive. Where in reality there was nothing to forgive in the first place.

Safe travels Bill. While a death pushed me to question my beliefs as inevitably these things can, it is sort of a gift as I said before. An unwelcome gift but a gift nevertheless. Part of me agrees with your assessment of PC, another part not. Death in my case shed me of my belief in dualism in its various forms. One day I will become ordinary star dust, if there is such a thing. May the wind be at your back.

I would say it is the other way around. Our decisions always have a justification or appropriate extenuating circumstances. Ultimately we confabulate a reason, an excuse etc for our actions.

Paul I think when I am very, very honest with myself, I make judgements based on what I want, Sorry this goes back to the free will thread. Mark Twain\ Where are there are two desires in a man's heart he has no choice between the two but must obey the strongest ...

I agree; sort of. Morality need not be a duality, but if it is not then it becomes a nonsense, As Joseph suggested, and I think you would agree, a prudent action might be considered a moral action. I have no problem with tis viewpoint. But prudence implies an intention, and again I have no problem. But if my intentions are in opposition to society's or perhaps yours and I act on my intentions in a way I consider prudent, am I being moral? I too like Genesis 3 ... especially 3:22, arguably the second most useful verse in the Bible. To get back into the Garden of Eden we could stop thinking in terms of good and evil.

Myths for some are stories that can give deep insights into the human condition. Personally I think they are fine, So long as we don't concretize them and convert them to some literal truth. Similarly for morality and morals. I can't help thinking morality in an absolute sense is an illusion. So when we label something as moral then we can describe it carefully something akin to wise. But this boils down to our "wants". But a morality play in one situation can be a disaster in another. I must admit I am uncomfortable divvying up our world into moral and immoral. This kind of dualism I think is unwise.

So the idea of this thread is to discuss something that might not exist? OK it is your thread ... I will leave you be.

I wonder what caused Scar to be the way he was?

Does morality exist ... that is outside of our belief in the concept?

Here we use the word good in a different sense ,,,, it is more like "accurate". In the previous uses good was used more in a sense of opposition to bad (as in evil or some diluted form of evil). I am questioning the existence of good, evil and the shades in between. To have morality whether in the movies or elsewhere I think we need have a belief in good and evil.

A good life? Do you mean a life you enjoy? A life that absorbs you? Or something else? The point I am trying to make is I can live a reasonably happy life without morals or even the concept of morality. So while we can discuss morality in the movies, I would like to cut the Gordian knot. For me a far more interesting subject. But if somebody wants to weigh in on morality in the movies, I will try and hold my tongue. :-)

Before going down the road of movies and morals ... personally I would question the concept of morals. Do we mean there is some absolute right and wrong? Do we refer to the twinge of guilt that we may have when doing something we think perhaps we should not do? Or do you mean breaking some socially accepted covenant? Just asking.