Bob the kitten slayer - he genuinely believes that running over kittens is moral cause it's the right thing to do.

If we don't take care of these kittens now, and lolcatnet rises up... Mankind as we know it will be doomed.





I took the survey... seemed a bit bias, I do agree a "what religion are you" question in the beginning would allow you to better organize your responses...

Can I get my cookie now?

That's my point. You have no reason to believe that your internal morals and humanity are correct.

Morality can't be "correct", it's a personal value. You may as well say that my favourite colour isn't correct, so we need a deity to tell us what our favourite colour really is.

Take, hypothetically, Bob the kitten slayer - he genuinely believes that running over kittens is moral cause it's the right thing to do.[/quote]And his actions obviously do not offend his morality, but they do offend the morality of others.

By saying that your morality is superior to Bob's, all you're really saying is that your brain has better chemical reactions than his. (btw, define "better" in this context)[/quote]You've brought the concept of "better" morals into this, not me. As above with "correctness", "better" is nonsense in this context.
Society is based on understanding the moral values of those around you so that everyone gets along (even if your morals don't agree).
^^This is why religion tries to impose a set of absolute morals onto people; it's an attempt to create social order. It's entierly flawed, and contrary to human behaviour, but it's the thought that counts.

And anyway, who says it is wrong to be immoral?[/quote]The people who are offended by your 'immoral' actions (immoral = against their own personal morals).
If your actions would offend someone in France or Iran then it matters not, but if your actions offend your neighbours, peers or friends, then you'll have issues.

I think the bible is a lot of garbage. I don't believe anything written in that book. It is an ancient novel full of murder, corruption, homosexually, homophobic, contradictions, beastiality, incest and fear. God is just a figment of our imagination. God is manmade. God is a hypocritical, controls people with fear. Popes that are child rapists and molesters with followers who condone terroristic acts. That feel the need to run someone elses life because they can't control their own.

[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1296773573' post='4769233']
I have read the bible, numerous times, and am well versed in its contents. I just happen to have very little regard for it or its vaunted contents.

How many times did you read it before coming to the conclusion that you don't care for it? Did you read it any more times after that?
[/quote]

It took probably 3-4 readthroughs before I started losing my taste for it. I've read it another couple of times since then and that only made matters worse.

But as I said, I'd rather not derail this thread with my personal tale, so I'll leave it to you chaps to finish beating the hell out of it :-)

But without an all powerful ruling deity, any definition of "nice philosophy" is arbitrary.

Morality can't be "correct", it's a personal value.

With respect, I'd like to point out that you're agreeing with my previous post.
When you set the standard for morality yourself, it is arbitrary. It will differ between people, between cultures.
It may even change over time.

but they do offend the morality of others.
...
You've brought the concept of "better" morals into this, not me. As above with "correctness", "better" is nonsense in this context.

I agree since both yours and Bob's morals are arbitrary neither is better than the other.
But if you accept that your morality is no better than his, why would you be offended when Bob revs up his pickup truck to go kitten squishing?

The people who are offended by your 'immoral' actions (immoral = against their own personal morals).

Such people are being irrational. It might be my moral to be immoral. And since their morality is no better than mine... ah you get the idea.

If your actions would offend someone in France or Iran then it matters not, but if your actions offend your neighbours, peers or friends, then you'll have issues.

This again is an arbitrary rule.
Someone else may well disagree that it is ok to offend someone in France just because they are not a neighbour/peer or friend and be offended at your comment.

With respect, I'd like to point out that you're agreeing with my previous post. When you set the standard for morality yourself, it is arbitrary. It will differ between people, between cultures. It may even change over time.

Except that you're saying that the existence of an all powerful ruling deity changes things in some way -- even if we knew the bible was the word of God and taught His morality, it would still be arbitrary.

But if you accept that your morality is no better than his, why would you be offended when Bob revs up his pickup truck to go kitten squishing?[/quote]Because I like cats? Because at an emotional level, seeing a cat be squished would manifest a feeling of disgust. Morals are a personal feeling - you can't choose to change base emotional responses to the world. Bob, knowing that squishing cats causes so much emotional distress to those around him, Bob should probably compromise in order to avoid conflict with his neighbours.

Such people [who's morals are offended by immoral actions] are being irrational. It might be my moral to be immoral. And since their morality is no better than mine... ah you get the idea.[/quote]You're missing the point.
Let's say that a lion's nature is such that if you punch it, it will eat you. This is it's morality.
It doesn't matter if you proclaim that "it's your moral" to punch lions -- the lion will still eat you if you do so. Saying "Oh mr lion, you're being irrational" isn't going to change the nature of the lion.
In the same way, telling someone that their morality is irrational is not going to change the nature of that person -- the nature to how they respond to the world.

So, no, I don't get the idea because it's flawed. A world where we say "I can do whatever I feel is right, because my right is just as right as your right" is a world full of people being eaten by lions. You're ignoring the fact that humans are not robots, we're animals, and animals have their own nature.
Instead, we need to balance what we feel is right along with what the rest of the community feels. The community thus has it's own composite morality that is a compromise between it's individuals.

Someone else may well disagree that it is ok to offend someone in France just because they are not a neighbour/peer or friend and be offended at your comment.[/quote]You've misread me, it's ok if your actions *would* (hypothetical "would") offend someone on the other side of the planet, because that person is not aware of or affected by your actions.
If your actions do affect someone, then you've created conflict.

I have no idea what this has to do with a survey though.

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1296791409' post='4769342']
Morality can't be "correct", it's a personal value.

With respect, I'd like to point out that you're agreeing with my previous post.
When you set the standard for morality yourself, it is arbitrary. It will differ between people, between cultures.
It may even change over time.
[/quote]
I've always kept this simple. My view of morality is always right. It's not set arbitrarily, but instead by critical thinking. It might differ with other people, but their views are always wrong if they don't agree. If my morality toward something changes over time it reflects what's morally right still. It's worked pretty well. It's rather open-minded too.

I took the survey earlier. I don't believe in deities. I'm sure the bible has some nice viewpoints since it's entertained people for years, but I couldn't get passed Genesis.

Except that you're saying that the existence of an all powerful ruling deity changes things in some way -- even if we knew the bible was the word of God and taught His morality, it would still be arbitrary.

No because an all powerful (infinite) God has the ability to *define* what is right and what is wrong.
And because His word is the very definition of right or wrong, it is not arbitrary. It is the standard.

Because I like cats? Because at an emotional level, seeing a cat be squished would manifest a feeling of disgust. Morals are a personal feeling - you can't choose to change base emotional responses to the world.

Just because someone has an emotional response to something does not make it right or wrong.
Bob has a different emotional response to flat cats and he is offended that you prefer cats in an unflattened state.

Sorry I must admit I don't follow what you're trying to say with the lion example.

I have no idea what this has to do with a survey though.

Yes we have hijacked this thread. Apologies to AndyGeers. If you want to continue this discussion, you can PM me.

Repeat after me, voluntary response data are worthless.

Surely it's only worthless if your goal is to publish a survey with results like "50% of all game developers are Christians!!!1!1"
I think there are still some meaningful conclusions to be drawn if you're more interested in some correlation of answers.

As for those who found themselves unable to answer the questions because you don't believe in a god - I'm sorry you felt that, although I must confess to being pretty surprised. My intention was that only the very last block of questions presupposes a belief in God (and perhaps the final question in some of the other blocks).

[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1296776983' post='4769256']
... some nice philosophy to live by ...

But without an all powerful ruling deity, any definition of "nice philosophy" is arbitrary.
ie.
Why is it "nice" to be polite to people?
Why is it "not nice" to cut peoples' ears off?
etc...
[/quote]That's basically saying "if God hadn't told me not to, I'd totally spend EVERY DAY raping, killing and generally being a totally bad-ass viking!"

No because an all powerful (infinite) God has the ability to *define* what is right and what is wrong.
And because His word is the very definition of right or wrong, it is not arbitrary. It is the standard.[/quote]Even people of the same religion come to different conclusions about morals - what gives you, and not those who disagree with you, the right of interpretation?