Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Ultimate Religious Debate; Sam Harris And Andrew Sullivan


Domarius

Recommended Posts

They are far more dangerous than any [...] "rouge state."

Oh, I dunno - those makeup fanatics are pretty dangerous. ;)

 

Picking on spelling aside, I agree about the weird "Christian" cults. They freak me out too.

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

@ Orb and oDDity - if you can live happily with the idea that you'll cease to exist forever in any form - good for you! :) (But I think it might go some way to explaining such a high degree of negativity in your outlook on life...)

 

But if someone else likes me likes to think there's something more to it than that, and it makes us happy, where's the harm in that?

 

Because I might also start thinking aliens took my socks? No - one rule does not work for everything. The thoughts about what happens after death is one place where I'll allow myself to have thoughts about it to make me happy, even though they wouldn't stand up to scientific scruitiny. And it's not a completely random idea - some things I hear about and experience from time to time seem to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Orb and oDDity - if you can live happily with the idea that you'll cease to exist forever in any form - good for you! :) (But I think it might go some way to explaining such a high degree of negativity in your outlook on life...)

 

Damn bloody right I can. The best thing about life is the fact that, whatever happens, it won't last for ever. I actually find the concept of existing eternally pretty close the the idea of hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not talking about anit-matter, I was talking about a simple hole, like the one you can have in your pocket and where your money falls out. And don't try to tell me that it is filled by air next, because you can bring your trouser to space and then the air would be gone but the hole would still be there. <_<

I was extending your analogy to better explain the point I was trying to make: disbelief as a negation of ordinary belief, rather than a lack of belief.

 

It's a common misconception among psychics, to claim that there is a "believe in science" which is the same as a belief in god. It is not. Also most sceptics don't simply believe in science, which would be quite a strange thing if you understand the process of scientific investigation.

That's why I specifically said the belief in the power of science, rather than belief in science (which is paradoxical at best).

 

Fair enough, some people make a distinction between a "strong" or a "weak" atheist, or state that most atheists are in fact agnostics because they don't specifically believe that god does not exist. I tend to take "atheist" to mean "somebody who lacks a belief in god" rather than indicating any strong disbelief.

Yes, but that's a very different kind of belief because it is based on evidence rather than faith or superstition. It is the latter that atheists and skeptics reject, not belief in its entirety.

I tend to agree with that statement, as I was implying in my last post. However, it's not the most common definition that you would hear from a theist, or often those have abandoned religion as they have grown older. Indeed, most theists don't even have a strong idea of where the boundary between atheism and agnosticism lie. I personally don't agree with the specific formulations of "strong" and "weak" atheism, although whether that derives from my own confusion or of the writers of the seminal benchmark-encyclopedia Wikipedia, I am unsure.

 

The (IMPORTANT!) difference between a belief in religion and a belief in science is what it would take to get you to change/update your beliefs.

Yes.

 

@ Orb and oDDity - if you can live happily with the idea that you'll cease to exist forever in any form - good for you! :) (But I think it might go some way to explaining such a high degree of negativity in your outlook on life...)

 

But if someone else likes me likes to think there's something more to it than that, and it makes us happy, where's the harm in that?

 

Because I might also start thinking aliens took my socks? No - one rule does not work for everything. The thoughts about what happens after death is one place where I'll allow myself to have thoughts about it to make me happy, even though they wouldn't stand up to scientific scruitiny. And it's not a completely random idea - some things I hear about and experience from time to time seem to support it.

It's the whole self-delusion thing--not so much that you're aware of it, but that you persist in it anyways. Someone who believes in in god or heaven or what have you because they believe it to be true may or may not be wrong, but they aren't generally holding two contradictory beliefs at once. What you appear to be professing is not a strict agnosticism ("I do not know if god exists"), but instead holding a belief that you know to be essentially false and meaningless ("God doesn't exist, but I believe in him anyways because it makes me feel better").

 

I'm more than certain that I've completely straw-manned your beliefs there, and for that I apologize. However, it should give you some insight as to why we find your beliefs so strange and confusing. Incorrect or opposing beliefs are one thing, but (apparent) doublethink is entirely another.

 

One thing bothers me though, with the obvious exception of oDDity, what makes you believe that we in general (meaning those of us who profess themselves as atheists) have such a negative outlook on life?

 

Ninja edit :ph34r: :

Damn bloody right I can. The best thing about life is the fact that, whatever happens, it won't last for ever. I actually find the concept of existing eternally pretty close the the idea of hell.

Personally, I disagree. I would love to be biologically immortal, living however long as I wanted--if nothing else, for sheer curiosity's sake. I want to see what amazing technologies we will possess in a thousand years' time , to know whether we will settle the galaxy, whether we will ever understand our universe. What strange aeons lie before us just beyond the reaches of our imagination? Why the hell would I want to die and leave all this behind? Very few religious conceptions of an afterlife have anything to do with continuing to experience this world. Even if there is an afterlife, it can always wait a couple of millennia. Life itself is already so varied an experience, so why do we humans alway insist on spoiling the pot with utopian afterlifes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Orb and oDDity - if you can live happily with the idea that you'll cease to exist forever in any form - good for you! :) (But I think it might go some way to explaining such a high degree of negativity in your outlook on life...)

 

But if someone else likes me likes to think there's something more to it than that, and it makes us happy, where's the harm in that?

 

I'm neither happy nor sad about it, I just accept it.

Given the choice, I'd rather live for a few thousand years - it'd be great to see the future and what direction our species takes, and it annoys me that I'll never know, so it's not that I want to cease existing a few decades from now, it's just that I have no reason to think otherwise, and therefore I can't force or fool myself into a fantasy of something esle.

How can you possibly fool yourself like that? It's ridiculous.

 

And it's not a completely random idea - some things I hear about and experience from time to time seem to support it.

Some specifics would be helpful here, though I'd image you're fearful that if you tell them, they'll be explained by other means and you'll no longer be able to abuse them to prop up your fantasy.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was extending your analogy to better explain the point I was trying to make: disbelief as a negation of ordinary belief, rather than a lack of belief.

 

Well, you are using two different terms and mix them up. The statement of "I don't believe a god exists." and "I belief that no god exists." are quite different from each other. The first one is a disbelief that conforms to my hole in the pocket. It simply doesn't exist. While the latter IS an actual belief, which you might construe as a disbelief but it isn't, because it IS a belief but about the opposite of your belief.

 

That's why I specifically said the belief in the power of science, rather than belief in science (which is paradoxical at best).

 

Again there is a problem here. what do you mean with "the power of science" and how would a belief in such be similar to a belief in god? There is a fundamental difference here, because god is accept on pure speculation without any proof at all, while "beliefing in science" is based on prior proof of what it can achieve, and a postponement of current achievements. If I say that at current time there is no anything can go faster than light, but I beliefe that scientists may overcome that barrier sometime in the future, it is very different from a belief in a god.

 

 

One thing bothers me though, with the obvious exception of oDDity, what makes you believe that we in general (meaning those of us who profess themselves as atheists) have such a negative outlook on life?

 

Why is it negative? Earth will continue on it's path and the universe as well. Just because I cease to exist as myself, I don't see that as a negative.

 

Personally, I disagree. I would love to be biologically immortal, living however long as I wanted--if nothing else, for sheer curiosity's sake. I want to see what amazing technologies we will possess in a thousand years' time , to know whether we will settle the galaxy, whether we will ever understand our universe. What strange aeons lie before us just beyond the reaches of our imagination? Why the hell would I want to die and leave all this behind?

 

That's actually the only regrettable part about it. :) So I pay for my house almost all my live, and by the time I'm finished with it, it's already over. When I read books about space science I'm quite curious how it will turn out. Such things would be quite interesting and for wchih life is to short. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some specifics would be helpful here, though I'd image you're fearful that if you tell them, they'll be explained by other means and you'll no longer be able to abuse them to prop up your fantasy.

 

No worries. He already knows it, and still believes, so some explanation will not really chaneg that. And even if it does, then there is yet another thing that needs to be explained ad infinitum.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the things I've seen could probably be coincidence or whatever. But they can't be proven either way beyond all doubt, unless you have all the scientific evidence on hand, which you don't. So I'm happy to beleive what I want. Giving accounts here would lead to predictable "but that could just be x and y happening", and it would clog up this discussion with things I'm quite aware of.

 

Nyarlathotep, yeah you did strawman my arguments - the idea that I don't believe in god but do, is ridiculous :) I'm not deluding myself. There are questions that are not answered, so there's a hole there. If you mean "deluding" as in "ignoring", then ignoring what? Ignoring the proof that nothing happens after death? There isn't any proof. I use things that I experience as a reason to beleive there is a guiding force, and something more than decomposition after death. That's pretty much it.

 

Also I knew I'd get picked up on the "negative outlook" comment :) I forgot to mention I was aiming that at oDDity. @Spar - One might take it negatively because they might not be happy with the idea that they will cease to exist. Personally I like to think there's something more after that.

 

@Orb - that's good, it's good to appreciate the fact that you have to make the most of things.

 

I'm alone here, because I don't follow any sort of organised religion, or spiritualism, or philosophy, or whatever, requiring scientific proof for all things practical, and at the same time I allow my mind to wander into the areas that science has not answered, rather than just plain ignoring it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Spar - One might take it negatively because they might not be happy with the idea that they will cease to exist. Personally I like to think there's something more after that.

 

That's exactly the problem. People think that they are something special in the universe while they are not. Of course each person is hte single most important person in it respective individual universe of it's mind, but that doesn't mean that there is anything in the real universe that is obliged to make this small collection of matter happy. And considering the scales then we are really so insignifcant compared to all the matter out there. I guess the proportion is less than an atom to the earth.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the problem. People think that they are something special in the universe while they are not.
How is this a problem?
Of course each person is hte single most important person in it respective individual universe of it's mind, but that doesn't mean that there is anything in the real universe that is obliged to make this small collection of matter happy.
and it doesn't mean there ISN'T anything either.

 

And considering the scales then we are really so insignifcant compared to all the matter out there. I guess the proportion is less than an atom to the earth.
I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't prove anything scientifically. Sheer numbers doesn't prove insignificance. I bet you'd find it significant if one bit of your RAM was corrupt, causing your computer's performance to slowly degrade and finaly crash. What you're saying is just a notion, an idea. A beleif even.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this a problem?

 

Because if they wouldn't thik themselve to be something special they could easier accept the universe as it is, and wouldn't need something to hold on to.

 

and it doesn't mean there ISN'T anything either.

 

Which of course is quite a wrong assumpation. Especially when I consider this in the light of history. In the beginning people thought that everything revolved around them. This believe has ever more dwindled, because science showed us that we are indeed quite unimportant tot he universe as a whole. There is nothing that cares about you in this whole universe except yourselve and your environment unless you make it so. There is no benevolent god who smiles on your or even watches you. IMO this believe is in the same league as expecting the stars to tells us something about our individual future as some tend to believe. It's fun to read the horoscope and sometimes you might think this or that fact is true and give you a small wonder, but it's nothing to believe in.

 

I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't prove anything scientifically. Sheer numbers doesn't prove insignificance.

 

Of course they do. :) That's what statistics is all about. You can go on about individualness as long as you like, but if you compare the numbers, you can easily see that your individualness is not really much existing. Think you are something special because you might chastise yourself and fast ever friday? But seeing the numbers of how many people already did the same and achieving the same with it and you become insigifnicant. Think you are somethign special because you are in love with that woman (or man), but seeing the numbers how many poeple experienced the same and you should realize that it's not really somethign special in a greater sense. Of course it is important to yourself, but that's what I said above. It only matters to you and your immediate environment and only if you make it so.

 

I bet you'd find it significant if one bit of your RAM was corrupt, causing your computer's performance to slowly degrade and finaly crash. What you're saying is just a notion, an idea. A beleif even.

 

Of course that would be annoying to me, but this is exactly what I said above. It becomes siginficant to me only, and maybe to a few others, like in the case of the server shutdown. But the universe will grind on, no matter what happens to me. My server breakdown didn't even make it on the local news, so you can see how signifcant that was. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, it was significant to YOU.

 

As oDDity said, the purpose of this argument is to pick apart someone's "beleif system" out of sheer cruelty. In other words - the objective is not to prove that the way I think is somehow harmful to me or others, but that it makes no sense to do it.

 

What you are arguing (and by "you" I mean everyone who fits into this category in this discussion) is that there is only one way to think that applies to all instances - logic. If this argument were to ever reach its natural conclusion, instead of going around in circles (Yeah, like that's going to happen here...) you would lose. Because I'm arguing for freedom, while you're arguing for only one way. I don't have to prove I'm right, I just have to prove you're wrong.

 

Consider the scenario; someone loses a loved one, and is greiving. But the greiving doesn't end, because they are mainly upset that the person has infinietly ceased to exist. Someone tells them "Well, we don't really know that for sure. I mean, look at x, and y, and z, that might suggest there's something more." and they say "Yeah, I'm sick of being upset about something I don't know anything about. For all I know, that could be true." Then they satisfy themselves that the deceased has gone to a better place, gets over it, and gets on with their life.

 

So as long as this keeps happening, this way of thinking is not pointless at all. It provides a very real purpose, in an area where logic cannot help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the scenario; someone loses a loved one, and is greiving. But the greiving doesn't end, because they are mainly upset that the person has infinietly ceased to exist. Someone tells them "Well, we don't really know that for sure. I mean, look at x, and y, and z, that might suggest there's something more." and they say "Yeah, I'm sick of being upset about something I don't know anything about. For all I know, that could be true." Then they satisfy themselves that the deceased has gone to a better place, gets over it, and gets on with their life.

 

How does believing that a dead relative has gone to "a better place" make things any better? If there is no afterlife and they are truly dead, then they are certainly not suffering in any way, so how is this any worse than "heaven"? Generally when people grieve it is actually themselves that they are upset for (although they would never admit it), not the dead person, so the actual destination of the deceased makes no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that this kind of thinking doesn't serve a purpose. I just say that you shouldn't attribute some kind of universal rule to it, where no such thing exists. If you are happy with this kind of thought that it works for you and that's ok, but this supports exactly what I already said above. That it only has some significance in your personal environment and not anywhere else, as religious people usually try to make us believe.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if someone else likes me likes to think there's something more to it than that, and it makes us happy, where's the harm in that?

 

Because I might also start thinking aliens took my socks? No - one rule does not work for everything. The thoughts about what happens after death is one place where I'll allow myself to have thoughts about it to make me happy, even though they wouldn't stand up to scientific scruitiny. And it's not a completely random idea - some things I hear about and experience from time to time seem to support it.

 

 

Dom, I have to disagree with you here. There is a lot of harm in the fact that people are capable of simply believing something whether or not there is any evidence to point to the fact. Because once you dismiss evidence based reasoning as a way of looking at the world, you can literally believe anything. So for you, its perhaps the desire to feel there is more to life than this world, that there is something beyond. But for someone else, well, they have decided that God wants them to fly an airplane into a building full of people. A political leader decides that God speaks to him directly and that God wants him to invade Iraq and bring it "democracy."(This is true, Bush has claimed divine guidance in his war in Iraq and Afghan.) Here in the US, there are a lot of folks who believe God wants them to kill doctors that provide abortions and harrass/threaten people who are seeking such operations.

 

Its perfectly fine to investigate, I strongly urge you to do so in any way possible, short of actually killing yourself to see whats on the other side! ;) Asking those questions is the right thing to do. Its when you stop asking questions because you believe you have all the answers wrapped up in with a pretty bow ribbon that the trouble begins. So, you say you think there is more to life than this world and your time here, fine, great, whats the evidence you have for your position? Because minus that, you could also equally claim that you are the Grand Emporer of the Universe and that all fish are actually birds and that children give birth to their parents. Why not? By the standard of truth you have claimed, all such things are equally valuable, equally true.

 

Do you believe such things? Of course not, because you are a alert, reasoning creature who can see such things simply do not jive with the evidence all around you. Now, take that same reasoning and apply it to your beliefs about the afterlife. What evidence do you have? The fact that others say its true isn't enough, we need much more evidence for such an important claim.

 

Im not trying to jump on your neck, bro, but from talking with you on these forums I feel compelled to challenge these ideas of yours because frankly you deserve better from yourself. This is how knowledge is gained, through debate, examination, the winnowing out of weak ideas, not accepting one's beliefs/desires at face value. It can be hard, but this is the burden of being a rational, critical thinker in a world of superstition and irrationality. Let other run about with their mushy, half baked "just-so" childrens tales about how the world works, you are made of sterner stuff than that, sir! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because once you dismiss evidence based reasoning as a way of looking at the world, you can literally believe anything.

But who says I will? I said it only applied for thoughts of the after life, nothing else. Only idiots beleive anything anyone tells them.

 

How does believing that a dead relative has gone to "a better place" make things any better?
This is up to the individual. The scenario I described, I think you will agree, is not uncommon. Not everyone thinks like you do. And for these people, these thoughts serve a purpose.

 

@Spar - that's what I mean. It's personal, you don't force these ideas onto someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But who says I will? I said it only applied for thoughts of the after life, nothing else. Only idiots beleive anything anyone tells them.

 

Then my question to you is why are these thoughts special? What makes them different from any other thought you may have held? Why should you accept one standard for all of your ideas and beliefs but then set this one on a special shelf? Reasoning allows for no exceptions, it doesn't claim to provide all the answers or even the best one but it is the best process for attempting to find those things. Its to be applied in all areas of life, not just in those you pick. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you are saying there is one rule to apply to everything, and there isn't. Not in the world as we currently experience it. Logic doesn't say what happens after you die, if anything at all. We just know the body decomposes. There could be more but nobody knows. And for some people, the thought of something better than decomposition brings releif. Logic won't bring releif for them, but beleifs will. That's the reasoning behind this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you are saying there is one rule to apply to everything, and there isn't. Not in the world as we currently experience it. Logic doesn't say what happens after you die, if anything at all. We just know the body decomposes. There could be more but nobody knows. And for some people, the thought of something better than decomposition brings releif. Logic can't answer it, so beleifs are used instead. That's the reasoning behind this.

 

 

 

If nobody knows what happens after death, then why should we give their beliefs about this non-knowledge any creedence? The reason logic says nothing about what happens after we die is because logically, having no evidence to go on, one cannot make assumptions about it. I cannot logically say there is an elephant in the building across the street from me, I have no reason to say so with any degree of truth.

 

So if we know nothing about something, we can say *nothing* about it. Not Im going to believe anything I want because we don't really know whether its true or not. Logic tells us if we cannot know something, then we cannot make logical belief claims about it. We can make faith based claims about it, but they are worthless in terms of useful knowledge. But we do know some things about the claims of an afterlife, not necessarily about the afterlife itself but about the people who tend to hold such beliefs. We can critique the process by which they have arrived at their beliefs and in turn critique those beliefs themselves. We are still not saying a thing about the afterlife, of which we have +no+ information. But we can say a lot about the folks who propose those ideas and the form those ideas take. And in my experience, they are all sadly, desperately lacking.

 

Its true that people use faith beliefs to provide answers about things that reasoning cannot handle, but that is the problem, not a good alternative. Because once you abandon logical reasoning for faith based reasoning, you can claim anything. You can say everyone goes to Disney after you die, why not?

 

(A side note: logic has a few meanings. It can mean straight up mathematical or philosophical logic, if A = B and B = C, then C = A, and so on. It can also mean logical reasoning in a more general sense, where you combined logical points with experiential knowledge that is not necessarily in a logical form but which evidence and testing has confirmed as having a truth value. Its not logical in its strict sense but in a fuzzier, everyday use sense. Its still lightyears better than faith!)

Edited by Maximius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic doesn't say what happens after you die, if anything at all. We just know the body decomposes. There could be more but nobody knows. And for some people, the thought of something better than decomposition brings releif. Logic won't bring releif for them, but beleifs will. That's the reasoning behind this.

 

That's where you are wrong. Logic says exactly what happens after somebody dies. You don't really think that your Windows goes "to a better place" every time you switch off your computer overnight, do you? Why not? Because computer are not sophisticated enough? Where does the magic barrier end from hence you are sophtisitcated enough to have an "afterlife"? Do crystals have an afterlive? Well, no, they just mindlessly replicate, but how can we be sure of it? Maybe a stone has an extremly strong feeling of pain, when you crack it, in some dimension, but he doesn't have a way of showing this to us in our dimension. Or we just haven't developed the skills yet to effectively communicate with stones? After all stones are much longer around than these wobbly organic stuff.

If not stones or crytsal, what about viriis? Do they have an afterlife? Teh also mindlessly replicate, but they can adapt already. Much more sophisticated then a crystal, right, but sophisticated enough? What about amoebas, multicellular organisms, mammals, etc.. Where exactly do you draw the line and why there? If there is such a distinct line of differentiation how does this be accounted for in terms of evolution? How does an afterlife fit with evolution?

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good article, shows how dogmatic both sides can become, blinding themselves to reasonable arguments in the vain belief that they are 100% correct without any leverage.

 

 

I agree V but I don't agree with the argument that the stories of either side are equally balanced. No doubt there is intolerance on both sides, and as an non-Believer I feel my share to be honest and have said so, and intolerance is never a good thing for all the obvious reasons. And I have Believer friends and associates whom I respect very much, they are probably the reason I have not slipped into complete dismissal of them.

 

But they are wrong. Not that we are right, we don't know, its our core strength, its a constant search, a (possibly) infinite process of trying to understand everything. We own the truth because we know we don't really have it, at least we should, Bog knows theres arrogance on both sides as well.

 

So we rely on our senses, our reasoning, and our original ideas, at the same time banging a pot in our own ear saying "This isn't the final answer, its just the beginning, you have good tools but they are flawed." Everyone should think this way. No alternatives are acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with the balance you assert, but even so it isn't productive to be represented in our ideals by extreme arrogance, even if it is on the side of logic and reasoning.

 

I would hope popular atheist/secular debaters always maintain composure and respect, thus making our side appear benevolent and informative in the least. Some of them in your articles are too ready to dismiss the believers as ignoramus rather than lay out convincing arguments which can hopefully turn them over.

Loose BOWELS are the first sign of THE CHOLERA MORBUS!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
    • OrbWeaver

      I like the new frob highlight but it would nice if it was less "flickery" while moving over objects (especially barred metal doors).
      · 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...