The Instigator
Thoht
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GuitarSlinger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religious Claims to Objective Morality are Might Equals Right Arguments

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,903 times Debate No: 119157
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (190)
Votes (0)

 

Thoht

Pro

Happy to think with you today.

R1: Acceptance and Basic Arguments. Con can rebut if they wish.
R2: Counterargument and Expansion
R3: Counterargument and Conclusion.

Clarification:

The majority of religions will argue that they have an 'objective morality' based on the fact that their God, The supposed creator(s) of our universe, Said so. Their argument looks something like this:

1. My God created the universe.
2. Therefore, He can't be wrong about morality.

It is easy for me to refute this along the lines of "Is it unimaginable that something could create the universe and be evil? " The answer to this is no.

Others would say:

1. My God created the universe
2. My God, By definition, Is good.
Therefore, My God's morality is objectively true.

The is-ought distinction plays a big part here. Even if God exists, There is no argument you can use that we ought to accept its morality as objective fact. The only argument you can give is that he is powerful or intelligent. These are might makes right positions. I submit that most religious people should be uncomfortable about this.

I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary.

To be clear, I'm hoping that a religious person takes up this challenge, If you believe your morality is objective then defend it.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
GuitarSlinger

Con

Your idea of what the religious argument is about morality is wrong. One first asks questions""where did we come from? What created matter? What is truth? What is Good? When one asks these questions, One could arrive at an entity that is considered "God".

You say " "Is it unimaginable that something could create the universe and be evil? " The answer to this is no. "

I would ask you to prove that something could create the universe AND be evil. You post that as an argument refuting the religious point of view, But you don"t "prove it". You simply say it and ask others to assume it"s true. But, I ask you to use logic and reason to show how it could be true that something could create the universe AND be evil.

So, Before we embark on this journey together, Perhaps we should begin with some clarifications and/or definitions:

A few questions/clarifications from you, If possible:
- When you define God, What does that mean to you? How would YOU define "God"? I want to make sure we are on the same page and comparing apples to apples so to speak. I've been in discussions with "atheists" who ask me to prove God exists, Only to find out their idea of God is some magic genie that is here to cater to their every whim and desire. . . . ("If God exists, Why am I poor? Why am I hungry? " etc)
- What do you mean by "good"?
- What is "evil"?
- What do you mean by "true"?

You created the debate with these terms, So I will ask you to please provide what you mean by these terms. Again, I want to make sure I understand you when you speak these terms. Words and how we use them are important when communicating. I've been invited to people"s houses where they say "We are having BBQ" only to arrive and find out their idea of BBQ is grilling hot dogs and hamburgers. Sorry, I"m from Texas". Hot dogs and hamburgers are NOT BBQ. Likewise I want to make sure we are speaking the same language.

Now, With regard to objective morality vs. Subjective morality, I like to think of this in simple terms, And again, For simplicity"s sake, Let"s stick with individual actions, Not the actions of a group of people, Such as a tribe, Clan, Family, Government or country. So I offer some basic definitions (I"m waiting for you to define "good" and "evil" before I do so =514; )

Morality " the extent to which an action is right or wrong, Good or bad
Subjective Morality " each individual considers an action as "good" or "bad" (or "right" or "wrong") based on their own idea what right and wrong, Then use their own interpretation and do not look "outside" themselves for guidance.
Objective Morality " each individual considers an action as "good" or "bad" ("right" or "wrong") based on something that is "outside" of themselves
True " conforming to an essential reality

Do you agree to these definitions of "morality", "subjective morality", "objective morality", And "true", And if not, How/what would you change?

The question (for both me AND you, And really everyone) is really this:
-IS there a right way and a wrong way to act?
-If the answer is "yes", What determines this "right" way and "wrong" way to act?
-Likewise, What determines if something is "True" or not?

The fact that people may behave AS IF morality is subjective doesn"t necessarily mean or prove that morality is subjective. In discussions like this people like to use the classic example of Hitler. Hitler thought he was doing "good" by killing the Jews. He felt and thought he was in the "right". People will point to that and say "See! Morality is subjective! "

Now let"s examine these actions, The Hitler scenario, A little closer, But from different perspectives. Most actions have 3 parts to it: the person doing the action, The person receiving the action, And the person observing the action:

The person doing the action - Hitler"s perspective - Hitler killed Jews. He thought he was doing "good", He thought he was "right". But that is HIS interpretation of what is good or bad. If morality is subjective, He is making the determination for himself on whether something is good or bad. This is simply his interpretation of the action.

The person receiving the action " the Murdered Jew perspective " it is safe to reason that the Jew that is killed would think this action of Hitler would be "bad", Would it not? They would consider this act "wrong" or "bad". But, If morality is subjective, That is simply THEIR interpretation of morality of the action. They are simply using their own idea of what is good or bad.

Observer A " a person watching the action " watching Hitler kill the Jews " Now perhaps this person, Observer A, Sees this action and thinks it"s bad or wrong. Again, With subjective morality this view is simply that person"s interpretation"what he/she thinks.

Observer B - a person watching the action " watching Hitler kill the Jews " Now perhaps this person, Observer B, Sees this action and thinks it"s good or right. Again, With subjective morality this view is simply that person"s interpretation"what he/she thinks.

So now, If morality is subjective, Some very interesting questions and/or answers arise:
1. Of all 4 people (Hitler, The murdered Jew, Observer A, Observer B), Which one is right or wrong? And why would you consider it right or wrong? What basis would you use to determine if each was right/wrong?
a. If morality is subjective, I. E. Simply what we think is right or wrong, One could argue that all 4 are right), Because that is their own belief. But again, This argument simply be the thought/belief of the person posing the argument.
2. If morality is subjective, Simply what the person doing the action makes of it, Does anyone have the right do tell (or prevent) the other person from NOT doing an action that is "bad" or "wrong". But, With "subjective morality", Is it "bad" or "wrong" if the person doesn"t think it is? If so, Why?
3. Now one could simply argue "Well, We have laws against killing people! It"s wrong! " Um, Ok.
a. But WHAT makes it wrong (or right)? Popular vote?
b. If we have "laws against this or that", Are we now asking the person committing the action to not look inward (i. E. Be subjective) but rather look outward to determine if something is good/bad, Right/wrong? And if we do that, Then aren"t we now basically saying that morality is objective?
i. This leads to the question WHAT then should be used ot determine if an action is good/bad, Right/wrong? For example, For all we know, Hitler could have modelled his behavior on Diocletian. He would be using Diocletian as his objective standard. Still being objective, But perhaps having the wrong standard.
ii. How does one determine what is the standard then to measure behavior"popular vote? Government edict? If out of 100 people on a deserted island, 95 vote to enslave the other 5, Does that now make it right?

We use "objective" standards in all aspects of our life. When we travel/hike/etc we use something outside of ourselves, Such as a compass, A map, The moon/sun/stars, To guide us"we don"t simply use our own intuition of what we think "the direction north" is"we"d never get to where we are going. When we take measurements, We use objective standards, Such as a ruler, A scale, Etc to determine the physical dimensions of something. The doctor, At check-in, Doesn"t say "hmmm you look like you"re about 175 pounds", No"they weigh you using a scale. The doctor doesn"t say "hmmm, You look like you have a temperature of 100""no, They use a thermometer to take your temperature. But guess what"even these "objective" standards must be calibrated correctly against some standard outside of itself, Otherwise the map/compass will point us in the wrong direction, Or the scale/thermometer/ruler will give the wrong reading/dimensions.

You argue that morality is subjective, But I"m willing to bet money you don"t live your life like that. If someone cuts in front of you at Starbucks or HEB (regional supermarket), Would you simply excuse it and say "Go right ahead, Morality is subjective, You are simply following your own idea of what is right and wrong. You think it"s right to cut in front of me, So go ahead. " Or would you appeal to something called "fairness", Some other standard outside of you and the other person. If the ne"er-do-well down the road takes your car for a joy ride, Would you protest, Saying "NO! You can"t do that it! You are can"t take what is not yours! ", Even though the other person thinks it"s perfectly alright?

Now, This doesn"t automatically mean God exists"by no means does this "prove" God exists. However, A subjective morality leads to some uneasy and uncomfortable questions that must be answered.
1. Who determines what is permissible or not permissible with subjective morality (the answer is the person doing the action determines the morality).
2. What is permissible, Not permissible with subjective morality? If something is not permissible, Who determines (see #1 above)

Likewise, An objective morality leads to some equally uncomfortable and difficult questions as well:
1. Who/What determines what is permissible or not permissible with objective morality. This is really the ONLY question.

One can"t leap from this question and say "God". That answer presupposes that God exists, Etc. That"s kind of like jumping into Nuclear Physics without first learning basic math, Algebra, Calculus, Differential equations, Etc. It"s a daunting task. One must first start with the basics that will lead you to the revelation that there must be something that points in the direction of truth, Right, And good- (we can decide later if we want to call this "God"

Alas, In a subjective morality, You think YOU are right, And I think I am right. So, We are both right. Unless"unless, There is something outside of YOU and I that determines who is right", But then, That would be objective morality.
Debate Round No. 1
Thoht

Pro

Illusions and Hallucinations are known to exist. Physically, They are false signals in our brain. A chain of neurons firing inappropriately taking shapes from the information stored there, As far as I'm aware, Though certainly a neurologist could show me inaccuracies with this.

Saying to physically describe illusions would be to point to the brain waves that are firing inappropriately.

What you're doing is kind of like saying 'describe music physically' when all it is is vibrations of other particles.

It's silly.

We can say imaginary friends are real to those who experience them. I had a lovely imaginary friend when I was a child. I grew out of it.

Your imaginary friend is not real to most of the rest of us simply because omar and I aren't scientists who are fully capable of describing reality in perfect terminology.

You could call certain processes chemical or mental instead of physical if you'd like.

All you're doing is leading omar down a dialogue tree like an NPC in a video game. None of this proves your point.
GuitarSlinger

Con

"Saying to physically describe illusions would be to point to the brain waves that are firing inappropriately. "

WRONG. That would be like to pointing to footprints in the sand in order to describe a surfer. That's not how you describe an object. Perhaps it is if the object has no physical characteristics to describe. So is that what you are saying, That Illusions/Hallucinations (things of the mind) do not have physical characteristics that can be described?

True, Imaginary things are not real. But the idea, The concept, Of an imaginary friend is indeed real. The idea of a unicorn is real, Even though a unicorn may not be real-- the idea does indeed exist.

It's not silly. I'm doing it to prove a point.

Certain things exist that do not have any physical characteristics, Things like ideas, Concepts, Thoughts, Dreams, Etc. Granted, They may leave physical evidence, But these objects in and of themselves do not have physical characteristics. As a result, The scientific can not be used to "prove" these things exist. Yes, You can examine brainwaves, Etc, But in reality all that is doing is proving that the brainwaves exist. Much like examining (scientifically) the footprints in the sand doesn't prove the surfer exists, Only that the footprints are there.

I'm taking little steps here with y'all. My first point, Is there are certain things that exist that do not have any physical traits to them. Yes, They may have leave physical evidence, But the evidence left behind (the brainwaves, The footprints) are not descriptive of the object itself and do not necessarily prove the object.
Debate Round No. 2
Thoht

Pro

Happy to think with you today.

For those who missed it, I erroneously posted a comment as my R2 instead of a real R2. I posted the real R2 in the comments and asked Guitar to reply to it there. You can look at the comments, (I know there are quite a few, It's around the 70th comment) for my real response, And I apologize for my mistake. I shouldn't post when I'm still drowsy in the morning.

That being said, My opponent's R1 argument isn't about this debate. He asks for the definition of certain words which are fairly well defined generally, And then asks for definitions to words that do not pertain to the topic. A distraction, Which is a debate strategy my opponent seems to favor. The entire 2nd half of his post is debating subjective morality, Which isn't the topic for discussion. Another distraction. Nowhere does he give an argument for attributing God with objective morality, So I am left with nothing to debate.

He asks in the comments after reading my R2 "How do YOU attribute objective morality to God? " This is a silly question. I don't. I believe that attributing an entity, Even if it were known to have created the universe, With objective morality is ridiculous. There is no justification. It is exactly like saying your Mother and Father created you so they determine the morality of all your actions. No one agrees with this. No one agrees that people who invent things or create things are the moral authors of those things, And that they determine what is good or evil uses of their inventions. Their opinions are subjective either way.

God's opinion is subjective. Objective Morality is true outside of ANY consciousness, Including God's. The attribute of omniscience (All-knowing) cannot even be attributed to God. Something could create the universe with less than full knowledge of everything that exists. Inventors of many things are ignorant of many facts. If God created the universe FOR us then he did a hell of a poor job did he not? We can't live in 99. 999% of the space that we know to exist. The Andromeda Galaxy will eventually collide with the Milky Way. The sun will eventually expand and burn everything on the face of this planet to death. Entropy will end us all in the heat death of the Universe. Any of these facts an omniscient or omnibenevolent (all-good) God could have avoided.

There is no reason to attribute omnibenevolence to God except by saying Might Equals Right. That God's superior knowledge or power compared to us would make him correct as to how we should act. There'd be no difference if I made a claim that my IQ is 4x yours, And you must follow all my orders and accept all my moral claims due to this disparity in intelligence. You would not accept this, Were it proven to be true. If God says to kill your child, Then you have no room to say no. Who believes this? Would you, My judges, Sacrifice your child if a powerful being told you to do so? Would you rape your best friend when told? Would you Genocide entire races of humans to the last babe and justify it because a celestial dictator told you it was morally correct to do so?

Those who say "yes" to all of these statements are morally bankrupt. My opponent assumes that objective morality has no basis outside of God. He assumes I believe not in objective morality. This is entirely a strawman, As well as an argument that has nothing to do with the debate itself.

This is my conclusion. I leave it to the readers to determine whether or not my claim is true. That my opponent has not provided a single argument for me to analyze. He has spent all his time arguing against Subjective Morality - a position that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

My opponent is more than welcome to provide us - at last - with a genuine argument for attributing God with omnibenevolence in his R3 outside of a might equals right assertion, Or a "because I defined it as such" i. E. Ontological assertion, Which I may dismiss simply by saying "not by my definition. " as my evidence would be the same as his. I will address any real argument in the comments.

Again, I apologize if R2 was confusing for the judges. I apologize for making it necessary for you to dig through the comments to find my true R2. I submit that I gave my opponent time in the comments to read my R2, Which he did, And reply, Which he did. With nothing more than asking me how I could debate his position for him, Which I am unable to, Because his position cannot be defended.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
GuitarSlinger

Con

** That being said, My opponent's R1 argument isn't about this debate. He asks for the definition of certain words which are fairly well defined generally, And then asks for definitions to words that do not pertain to the topic. A distraction, Which is a debate strategy my opponent seems to favor. The entire 2nd half of his post is debating subjective morality, Which isn't the topic for discussion. Another distraction. Nowhere does he give an argument for attributing God with objective morality, So I am left with nothing to debate. **

Subjective morality not a topic for discussion? You yourself in your opening offer up a challenge to defend objective morality. I am also challenging your initial assertions in your opening. In your opening you proposed what the religious argument is about God and morality, And then you refute the argument, Claiming victory. All I said was your argument was wrong, You are starting off on the wrong foot when you say the theist believes God can"t be wrong about morality because God created the universe. That"s not how the religious argument is.

You then try to prove yourself right by saying "Is it unimaginable that something could create the universe and be evil? " The answer to this is no. " Again, You don"t offer any basis for this, You just simply say it"s true and expect others to go along with it. When I challenge you on it, You say I"m being a distraction. Are you saying I can"t challenge your assertions? .

You throw out statements and assume them to be factual, But when challenged on them you say "it"s not what the debate is about. " My argument is all about the debate, But in order to do so, One must start at the beginning so to speak. One can"t jump right into Nuclear Physics, One must first start with the foundation.

Your opening statement/argument ends with the challenge "If you believe your morality is objective then defend it. "

Morality is all about a determination of what is "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". Since you didn"t define these in you are opening remarks, I want to make sure I understand what YOU mean by them when YOU say them. I don"t want to assume that you accept the general definition of these terms. Likewise, You shouldn"t with me. It"s pretty simple to give me your definition of these terms. It"s not a distraction, But critical when discussing morality.

** He asks in the comments after reading my R2 "How do YOU attribute objective morality to God? " This is a silly question. I don't. I believe that attributing an entity, Even if it were known to have created the universe, With objective morality is ridiculous. There is no justification. It is exactly like saying your Mother and Father created you so they determine the morality of all your actions. No one agrees with this. No one agrees that people who invent things or create things are the moral authors of those things, And that they determine what is good or evil uses of their inventions. Their opinions are subjective either way. **

Really? Where did I ask that? What I asked you to do was invalidate an attribute of God (such as Omnibenevolence). YOU are the one that said you could invalidate an attribute of God, Not me. And you said it"s trivially easy. So I challenged you to do it. Or do you expect to take what you state as fact without anything to back it up? Please re-read the comments. If I am wrong about what I wrote or said, Then please show me.

**God's opinion is subjective. Objective Morality is true outside of ANY consciousness, Including God's. The attribute of omniscience (All-knowing) cannot even be attributed to God. Something could create the universe with less than full knowledge of everything that exists. Inventors of many things are ignorant of many facts. If God created the universe FOR us then he did a hell of a poor job did he not? We can't live in 99. 999% of the space that we know to exist. The Andromeda Galaxy will eventually collide with the Milky Way. The sun will eventually expand and burn everything on the face of this planet to death. Entropy will end us all in the heat death of the Universe. Any of these facts an omniscient or omnibenevolent (all-good) God could have avoided. **

Wow. You believe there is a much better way of creating/designing the universe for humans to live? If that"s not the height of arrogance, I"m not sure what is. That"d be like me scoffing at Shakespeare and saying "Sheesh, Hamlet could"ve been written much better " Just because you don"t like how something is designed or think there is a better way, Doesn"t mean there is actually a better way. But yet, You state it and expect me to take that as fact. Your statements about it being a hell of a poor job is simply a matter of opinion"yours. Dare I say it, It"s a subjective opinion.

** There is no reason to attribute omnibenevolence to God except by saying Might Equals Right. That God's superior knowledge or power compared to us would make him correct as to how we should act. There'd be no difference if I made a claim that my IQ is 4x yours, And you must follow all my orders and accept all my moral claims due to this disparity in intelligence. You would not accept this, Were it proven to be true. If God says to kill your child, Then you have no room to say no. Who believes this? Would you, My judges, Sacrifice your child if a powerful being told you to do so? Would you rape your best friend when told? Would you Genocide entire races of humans to the last babe and justify it because a celestial dictator told you it was morally correct to do so? **

Those who say "yes" to all of these statements are morally bankrupt. My opponent assumes that objective morality has no basis outside of God. He assumes I believe not in objective morality. This is entirely a strawman, As well as an argument that has nothing to do with the debate itself.

It is entirely relevant to the debate. Any discussion about Morality involves a discussion on "good" vs "bad", And with God as part of the discussion and the Goodness of God, It is right to discuss omnibenevolence. You yourself state that you can refute Your argument against omnibenelovence, So I challenged you.

This argument disregards Man"s Free Will. God may state something, But he doesn"t force people to do it. He gives them the choice. Parents with older kids certainly know this. Imagine being the parent of a 17 year old son. He wants to hang with his friends on Friday night. The father wants him to spend the evening with him. So the father says, "Son, If you spend time with me and do as I say, I promise you"ll have greater reward than you can imagine. But the choice is yours. I won"t force you to spend time with me. " The son now has a decision to make. He makes the decision to go hang with friends. Now imagine the son calling the father from his friends and saying "Dad, I want you to give me the reward you said you"d give me if I spent time with you. If you don"t, Then yhou don"t really love me. You"re not good or loving, Otherwise you"d give me the reward. " Most people would call that son spoiled and a brat. The father didn"t force the son to make the decision he did.

The argument against Omnibenevolent is typical, But flawed

Flaw #1 " The person posing this argument is elevating themselves to the level of a God and stating "I see things as God sees them". IN other words, What "I view as "good" is viewed as "good" by God, And what I view as "bad" is viewed as "bad" by God. SO if I see it as bad, God surely sees it as bad, And if God sees it as bad, Why does he allow it to happen? " People will think of the most heinous or dastardly thing and pose that and say how could a benevolent God allow that to happen. That tends to draw emotion and put the opponent on the defensive. Rather than draw emotion, It doesn"t matter what the situation is. Let"s just call it "good thing" and "bad thing". The question becomes, Why would a benevolent God allow a bad thing to happen?

Flaw #2 " The person fails to ask an important question. "Could there be a reason to allow a bad thing to happen. " Just because we view something as bad, God may have a bigger purpose, A greater good he is envisioning growing out of this bad thing. Just because you can"t conceive or think of a greater good that could possibly come of something bad, Doesn"t mean it"s not possible. It"s arrogant to think that just because I can"t think of a greater good, One doesn"t exist.

** This is my conclusion. I leave it to the readers to determine whether or not my claim is true. That my opponent has not provided a single argument for me to analyze. He has spent all his time arguing against Subjective Morality - a position that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. **

Um, Isn"t this what you asked in your debate challenge: "If you believe your morality is objective then defend it. " Wouldn"t a defense of objective morality also include arguments against Subjective Morality?

My opponent is more than welcome to provide us - at last - with a genuine argument for attributing God with omnibenevolence in his R3 outside of a might equals right assertion, Or a "because I defined it as such" i. E. Ontological assertion, Which I may dismiss simply by saying "not by my definition. " as my evidence would be the same as his. I will address any real argument in the comments.

Again, I apologize if R2 was confusing for the judges. I apologize for making it necessary for you to dig through the comments to find my true R2. I submit that I gave my opponent time in the comments to read my R2, Which he did, And reply, Which he did. With nothing more than asking me how I could debate his position for him, Which I am unable to, Because his position cannot be defended.

May your thoughts be clear,

All I am doing is challenging your initial assertion. In Your first argument you propose what the Theist believes about God and morality, And then you refute the argument, Claiming victory. All I said was your argument was wrong, You are starting off on the wrong foot when you say the theist believes God can"t be wrong about morality because God created the universe. That"s not how the religious argument is.

You then try to prove yourself right by saying " "Is it unimaginable that something could create the universe and be evil? " The answer to this is no. " Again, You don"t offer any basis for this, You just simply say it"s true and expect others to go along with it. When I challenge you on it, You say I"m being a distraction. Yet, These are what are in YOUR arguments.

You throw out statements and assume them to be factual, But when challenged on them you say "it"s not what the debate is about. " My argument is all about the debate, But but in order to do so, One must start at the beginning so to speak. One can"t jump right into Nuclear Physics, One must first start with the foundation.

Your opening statement ends with the challenge "If you believe your morality is objective then defend it. "

Again, Morality is all about a determination of what is "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". Since you didn"t define these in you are opening remarks, I want to make sure I understand what YOU mean by them when YOU say them. I don"t want to assume that you accept the general definition of these terms. Likewise, You shouldn"t with me. It"s pretty simple to give me your definition of these terms. It"s not a distraction, But critical when discussing morality.
Debate Round No. 3
190 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@omar2345

Dude. . . Twilight Zone. . . The TV series. You know. . . Rod Serling? Lol. Twilight Zone was created in 1959. . . Great Series. If you think M. Night Shyamalan movies had twist endings, You should watch the Twilight Zone!
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I was mentioning Twilight as in the 2008 drama fantasy. Not the Twilight zone that was created in 2002.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@GuitarSlinger

That is really old. I would games have gotten better but it has become more unethical. So I guess it is somewhat good you are not playing them. There are still amazing games released in between 1982 and now but I guess entertainment is subjective.

I thought you watch the more recent Twilight. If you like that one you have offended me but it was the older one. I guess classical movies tend to be better then current movies. What I look for in movies is the longevity. Classical movies do have that and current movies only tend to exploit the consumer whether it children or fan bases who would like anything even if the movie is objectively bad. I am discounting most classical movies that do not have longevity which can be a problem when saying in the past were the best. I guess we can only compare the best of each year and state which one has more longevity. The reason why I use this criteria is because I would watch a movie more then once and it can tell me if nostalgia was clouding me. It has been working so far.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@omar2345

Gaming terminology. There you go-- no wonder I didn't get it. I haven't lost myself in a videogame since the days of Joust, Asteroids and Zaxxon.

Nah, It doesn't offend me. Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder. Ever see that Twilight Zone episode where this gorgeous blonde was on this strange planet where everyone was hideous? They are thought SHE was deformed and ugly. It's a classic.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@GuitarSlinger

Non-Player Character. From video games where the developer designed the person to say exactly what the writer intended.

Your ugly. Hopefully that offends you. If not I give up. Don't take it personally since I have not seen your face.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@omar2345

I do like what you said though about more people are questioning assumed sacred ideas like religion.

I welcome questioning religion. That's probably the best way for someone to learn about their religion is to question it, To seek the Truth. I tell ya, That's how I learned (REALLY learned) my faith, Is by asking the questions and truly seeking the answers. WHY do we do this, This or that at Church? Why does the Church teach this, Etc. Even before the "why", There must come the "what"-- WHAT does the Church teach, Etc?

Many people make decisions bases on what the Church teaches, But truth be told, They don't really know what the Church teaches-- they think they do, But they don't. They go by hearsay, What they hear on CNN, What they read on a debate site, Or worse yet, Wikipedia.

To learn and gain wisdom is essentially becoming aligned with the Truth (there's that word again, Truth). One learns and gain wisdom by asking questions, But at the same time, One must be open to the answer, No matter how difficult it may be to accept.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@omar2345

I found it neither humorous nor offensive. Lol. I didn't find it humorous because (a) I didn't know what he meant by "NPC" dialogue tree. If that's a joke, It went over my head. Lol.

Takes a lot to offend me. Names, Insults, Etc don't bother or offend me. Actually, Whenever I see those, I take that as the opponent waving the white flag, Basically saying they have no other argument. Oh well.

Humor is subjective? Wait a minute. How do you know humor is not objective? Define "subjective humor" please.

I'm joking.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@GuitarSlinger

"That's kinda what's wrong with our society/culture today. "
This has always been the case. The difference is more people are questioning assumed sacred ideas like religion. That is why you perceive it this way. The truth is more people are open to having their mind changed today then there have ever been in history. Compare the population and the availability of resources in getting answers.

"Folks aren't able to defend their positions/arguments, So they resort to other tactics (name-calling, Accusations, Etc). "
You could've at least said the joke was funny. It was funny. Thoht called you an NPC reading out his lines that were programmed into you. In a sense he is right since most people who follow a religion tend to have the same ideas since they are all following the same faith which can give off an NPC vibe. Yes it was name calling but if he explained the name calling would you still find it offensive or maybe you didn't? Humour is subjective so I guess you might not find the joke funny.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
That's kinda what's wrong with our society/culture today. Folks aren't able to defend their positions/arguments, So they resort to other tactics (name-calling, Accusations, Etc).

Oh well.

Next time you debate someone, Understand that the other person may explain another point in effort to get you to understand. They are not necessarily going off-topic.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Now I'm convinced. Troll. You're doing the whole NPC dialogue tree bit here. Good day.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.