Christians for a Moral America ~gag~ is attacking Peter Jackson's Hobbit

[Crow]

Btw, I was always a Magneto fan.

Same here.

[envilid]

Yes it may not convey the message of compromising with your enemy in these movies because they are in fact evil and that would probably make for a boring movie. I still think that it shows that you should be the good guy that doesn't harm the innocent. I myself wouldn't just assume my enemies are evil though I guess many people do.

When George Bush declared war on Iraq he called them evil, Saddam also called America evil.

X-men have made for very entertaining movies. Which side was evil?

In my opinion there is no such thing as evil, no such thing as objective good or objective bad, no such thing as morality. The world is far too complex to polarise it with such nonsense.

I think that a serial killer would be an objective evil and that there is morality and should be morality that is shown by society. I realize religion and societies can be completely different, but I mean individual people should have a moral compassion. Depending on how you grew up this may be different, but if there were no morals it would be like survival of the fittest.

[Sophus]

Don't they know Tolkien was an Inkling pal of CS. Lewis's?

[Ali]

Any inside observers here who think the USA* is good, possibly even have a foam number one finger stashed away somewhere?

*Refers not only to the US government, but the standards of living, safety etc. etc. The whole package, in other words.

I don't think that we're #1 (we're probably not in the top ten in many areas) but I can honestly say that I like the US.  Of course, I've never spent much time outside of it, so that may be why.  I consider myself a patriot, but my definition of patriotism doesn't include mindlessly sitting back and accepting the status quo.  In my mind, real patriots try to figure out what is going wrong with their country and what they can do to fix it. So I guess I'm a "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" patriot. 

[Stevil]

I think that a serial killer would be an objective evil and that there is morality and should be morality that is shown by society. I realize religion and societies can be completely different, but I mean individual people should have a moral compassion. Depending on how you grew up this may be different, but if there were no morals it would be like survival of the fittest.

A serial killer is not evil.
I could classify myself as an amoralist or agreeing with moral nihilism

The meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe

I feel that this is the only logically consistent path that an Atheist can take.
In your above statement you are subscribing to Moral universalism

The meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature

Just because everyone might agree that an act is bad for society and thus should be outlawed and that offenders should be punished, this does not require the adherence or belief in an objective morality.
If a male goes up to another male and kills him so that he can take his female for sexual endeavours does that make the male evil?
What if that male was a dog or wolf, would you still consider it to be evil?
Why are humans so different?
As a society based creature we tend to recognise that there are certain rules that we need in order to coexist peacefully. People that abuse those rules need to be punished in order for us to maintain a functional society. We are intelligent enough to know that we want to be safe and that we want our loved ones to be safe also. We are intelligent enough to extrapolate that out to general members of society. Hence we come up with laws against most forms of murder and rape etc. These rules are human made for the purpose of survival and a functioning society. I guess you could call them a moral code, but I would not go down that path.

Developing a moral code and using law to enforce this will only lead to oppression and eventually conflict (potentially war). Laws need to be made to ensure a functioning society, not a moral one.

As an Atheist if you get into an argument where you are defending a stance on having a moral code, you will always get stuck. From where do you get this moral code? Is it only those items that everyone agrees with? What if a ruler comes into power and kills all those that he/she opposes? Would you be able to contest on the grounds of morality? How could you when not everyone agrees with you (at the very least, the ruler is in disagreement) therefore your morality is subjective. A subjective morality is worthless in my opinion. You cannot use it to force your morals onto others. Who is to decide that your morals are more correct than other person's?
Theists at least can point to their god's morals and point to either their scripture or their religious organisation as the definer of this moral code. Atheists cannot.
All an Atheist can do is to look for an inclusive set of laws to define a functional society, that which represents society and allows freedom beyond the minimum set of rules required for us to co-habitat together.
Of course there are many Atheists who have looked to rule for selfish reasons and hence have become dictators, these people cannot philosophically defend their position, they must rule by force.

[Sweetdeath]

Are you saying  atheists need a source to point to for their own personal 'moral codes'? o__o I feel good knowing I don't have to open an ancient myth book  to understand my own actions.

[Ali]

er is not evil.
I could classify myself as an amoralist or agreeing with moral nihilism

The meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe

I feel that this is the only logically consistent path that an Atheist can take.
In your above statement you are subscribing to Moral universalism

The meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature

Just because everyone might agree that an act is bad for society and thus should be outlawed and that offenders should be punished, this does not require the adherence or belief in an objective morality.
If a male goes up to another male and kills him so that he can take his female for sexual endeavours does that make the male evil?
What if that male was a dog or wolf, would you still consider it to be evil?
Why are humans so different?
As a society based creature we tend to recognise that there are certain rules that we need in order to coexist peacefully. People that abuse those rules need to be punished in order for us to maintain a functional society. We are intelligent enough to know that we want to be safe and that we want our loved ones to be safe also. We are intelligent enough to extrapolate that out to general members of society. Hence we come up with laws against most forms of murder and rape etc. These rules are human made for the purpose of survival and a functioning society. I guess you could call them a moral code, but I would not go down that path.

Developing a moral code and using law to enforce this will only lead to oppression and eventually conflict (potentially war). Laws need to be made to ensure a functioning society, not a moral one.

As an Atheist if you get into an argument where you are defending a stance on having a moral code, you will always get stuck. From where do you get this moral code? Is it only those items that everyone agrees with? What if a ruler comes into power and kills all those that he/she opposes? Would you be able to contest on the grounds of morality? How could you when not everyone agrees with you (at the very least, the ruler is in disagreement) therefore your morality is subjective. A subjective morality is worthless in my opinion. You cannot use it to force your morals onto others. Who is to decide that your morals are more correct than other person's?
Theists at least can point to their god's morals and point to either their scripture or their religious organisation as the definer of this moral code. Atheists cannot.
All an Atheist can do is to look for an inclusive set of laws to define a functional society, that which represents society and allows freedom beyond the minimum set of rules required for us to co-habitat together.
Of course there are many Atheists who have looked to rule for selfish reasons and hence have become dictators, these people cannot philosophically defend their position, they must rule by force.

I disagree with your post because of the bolded.  I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule".  I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong.  And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong.  For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this.  The good ones, anyway.  If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving.  Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong. 

[Stevil]

I disagree with your post because of the bolded.  I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule".  I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong.  And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong.  For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this.  The good ones, anyway.  If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving.  Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong. 

But you are not claiming an objective moral code, only subjective, which to others is meaningless as it is yours and not theirs.

[Ali]

I disagree with your post because of the bolded.  I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule".  I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong.  And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong.  For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this.  The good ones, anyway.  If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving.  Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong. 

But you are not claiming an objective moral code, only subjective, which to others is meaningless as it is yours and not theirs.

Well, I think that others already DO follow this code whether they know it or not (in other words, I think that empathy is the real reasoning behind most laws AND the main religious edicts that everyone remembers) so does that count for anything?

[Stevil]

Are you saying  atheists need a source to point to for their own personal 'moral codes'? o__o I feel good knowing I don't have to open an ancient myth book  to understand my own actions.

No, I am not saying that.
An Atheist can classify something as their own personal moral code if they want to, but they cannot justify pushing this moral code onto others. One person's moral code is no better than another's.
I just don't understand why Atheists even want to use Theistic terms such as morality, good, evil, ethical rights. It is all nonsense and is unnecessary. We don't need to stoop to this in order to prove that our stance is more beneficial to society than that of a theist.
Atheism has no inhibitors towards equality, freedom and fairness, where in my opinion, theism often falls short.

[Stevil]

Well, I think that others already DO follow this code whether they know it or not (in other words, I think that empathy is the real reasoning behind most laws AND the main religious edicts that everyone remembers) so does that count for anything?

The golden rule is a great guideline. I love it and try to live by it. It is not my moral code though. Just a principle that makes reasonable sense.
Theists do not live by it. They live by scripture. For many this means trying to stop gay people sinning, trying to stop terminally ill people seeking compassionate death, trying to stop responsible adults using contraceptives, killing women for committing adultery...
If a government tries to enforce morality then society is in for trouble.

[Tank]

Btw, I was always a Magneto fan.

Same here.

It's his personality.

[Tank]

I disagree with your post because of the bolded.  I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule".  I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong.  And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong.  For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this.  The good ones, anyway.  If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving.  Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong. 

But you are not claiming an objective moral code, only subjective, which to others is meaningless as it is yours and not theirs.

Two people can hold subjective morality that is informed by a common cultural/social background and thus can be very close in practical/pragmatic application. The problem arrises when the subjective culturally informed moralities are too disparate ie a western liberal Christian and Hasidic Jew.

[Ali]

Well, I think that others already DO follow this code whether they know it or not (in other words, I think that empathy is the real reasoning behind most laws AND the main religious edicts that everyone remembers) so does that count for anything?

The golden rule is a great guideline. I love it and try to live by it. It is not my moral code though. Just a principle that makes reasonable sense.
Theists do not live by it. They live by scripture. For many this means trying to stop gay people sinning, trying to stop terminally ill people seeking compassionate death, trying to stop responsible adults using contraceptives, killing women for committing adultery...
If a government tries to enforce morality then society is in for trouble.

Normally I agree with this statement, but I also have to question what you mean by morality.  For example, do you consider stealing to be a moral issue?  If so, are you against laws against stealing?  And so on for murder, rape, assault, fraud most of the stuff that is currently illegal.

I'm against the government enforcing morality in the case where the issue in question is about personal choice and does not affect everyone else.  For example, I am pro-gay marriage, fairly pro-choice, pro-legalization of recreational drugs, et cetera.  But I still want the government to have laws against things that hurt other people, such as stealing.  It's the old "Your fist ends where my face starts."  Do you agree with that, or would you get rid of most laws because they are enforcing some sort of morality?

[Stevil]

Normally I agree with this statement, but I also have to question what you mean by morality.  For example, do you consider stealing to be a moral issue?  If so, are you against laws against stealing?  And so on for murder, rape, assault, fraud most of the stuff that is currently illegal.

I'm against the government enforcing morality in the case where the issue in question is about personal choice and does not affect everyone else.  For example, I am pro-gay marriage, fairly pro-choice, pro-legalization of recreational drugs, et cetera.  But I still want the government to have laws against things that hurt other people, such as stealing.  It's the old "Your fist ends where my face starts."  Do you agree with that, or would you get rid of most laws because they are enforcing some sort of morality?

I have no belief in morality.
I suggest that governments need to enforce laws required for a functional society not a moral one.
A society that steals from each other, causes much disruption and conflict and therefore is not functional. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If a government tries to impose a morality code purely for moral reasons then they are infringing on someone's rights without being able to justify in a way that these people could understand or agree with the infringment, this is oppression and causes conflict and hence is counter to a functioning society.