Great Debate - What is a 'right'?

[Misanthropy]

I'm guessing it's because Christianity is the world's most widely spread religion?

[AlanG]

Originally posted by alien_syndm
It's census not cencus, I see that spelt wrong all the time and it pisses me off. It was probably a typo on my part rather than bad spelling wth regard to the aethesit....I mean its pronounced IST !

That's why I wondered where "aetheSIT" came from. And I pointed it out because it's spelt incorrectly by people attacking atheism all the time - if you want to attack a position at least learn enough about it that you can spell it. A census is carried out every 10 years so isn't a word used a lot.

Who says ? Erm please tell me in what way having alot of people agree with you makes your opinion "right" ? And by this it is merely opinion, not something which could be argued as fact.

It doesnt make it "right" but it makes it more right than "fuck off no you don't, your opinion against mine, end of." If you want to state that religion is the basis of morality, or rights or whatever then do so.

I think you could say the person who believes in an afterlife would value it more as they would think how little time they have here on earth compared to what awaits them and try to make the best of it. A few years of blasphemy for an eternity of pain etc.

Yeah Pascals Wager , which only applies if you consider a monotheistic model in a situation where you have a choice between one God or being atheistic. Which means it is useless in the real world where there are hundreds of religions and thousands of Gods worshipped.

Glad to see you've dismissed my argument as nonsensical, diplomatic as ever.

I dismissed it as nonsensical as it's based on sense, reason, logic or evidence. Unless of course you wish to continue derailing the topic and avoiding backing up your original claim "You have to get religious before you start mentioning rights."

I noticed in your link so many of the articles are related to or involve christianity, why is that do you think ?

because they were written by people in the Western world of which the most prominent religion is Christiantity and it's various sects. The majority of them were written by Americans as a reaction to the Christian extremism that exists there, especially in the South. Because the people there suffer from the "atheists are immoral" arguement they then write articles stating why they think this arguement is false.

[alien_syndm]

It doesnt make it "right" but it makes it more right than "fuck off no you don't, your opinion against mine, end of." If you want to state that religion is the basis of morality, or rights or whatever then do so.

Erm and it does why ?
Was it not a load of xians arguing the earth was flat etc and yet along came people that disagreed.

Yeah Pascals Wager , which only applies if you consider a monotheistic model in a situation where you have a choice between one God or being atheistic. Which means it is useless in the real world where there are hundreds of religions and thousands of Gods worshipped.

OOh how the use of fancy words intimidates. There maybe 100s of religions but most are exponents, either only by birth or through action of only but a few. I would not consider the point useless at all.

I dismissed it as nonsensical as it's based on sense, reason, logic or evidence. Unless of course you wish to continue derailing the topic and avoiding backing up your original claim "You have to get religious before you start mentioning rights."

You only see the evidence that suits you ! I think it made sense personally, you disagree. Seems as noone else has commented so far what else can we do from there ?

because they were written by people in the Western world of which the most prominent religion is Christiantity and it's various sects. The majority of them were written by Americans as a reaction to the Christian extremism that exists there, especially in the South. Because the people there suffer from the "atheists are immoral" arguement they then write articles stating why they think this arguement is false.

Probably yeah but surely atheism shouldn't discriminate, where's all the chillah buddah men eh ?


PS Argument isn't spelt with an E

[Misanthropy]

And you wondered why he said your argument was nonsensical...

Dude, are you on drugs? You haven't said anything coherent in the past four posts

[AlanG]

Originally posted by alien_syndm
Erm and it does why ?
Was it not a load of xians arguing the earth was flat etc and yet along came people that disagreed.

Yeah and mainly got burned at the stake for it. What has it to do with the topic though?

OOh how the use of fancy words intimidates. There maybe 100s of religions but most are exponents, either only by birth or through action of only but a few. I would not consider the point useless at all.

What's fancy about "monotheistic"

The reason Pascals Wager is useless is Pascals Wager states that there are four positions you can take:

A there is a God and you believe in him
B there is a God and you dont believe in him
C there is no God and you believe in him
D there is no God and you don't believe in him

it then argues using wargame strategy that the best position to take is Belief either way - if you are right you go to heaven if you are wrong you don't gain/lose, while if you don't believe and are right you don't gain anything but if you are wrong you have Hell. It fails however if you consider a polytheistic model:

A there is a Christian God and you believe in him
B there is a Christian God and you dont believe in him
C there is a Muslim God and you believe in him
D there is a Muslim God and you dont believe in him
E there is no God and you believe in one of them
F there is no God and you don't believe in any of them

if you choose A or C and are correct you win
if you choose A or C and are wrong you dont win/lose
if you choose E or F and are correct you don't win/lose
if you choose E or F and are wrong you lose
if you choose B or D and are right you lose
if you choose B or D and are wrong you lose

As there are only 2 ways to win, 6 to lose and 4 neutral with no way to differentiate between the ways to win and avoid a great loss if wrong it fails.

Now expand it to include all religious belief systems in the world and you'll see why it's useless.

You only see the evidence that suits you !

No, I only see evidence . Unless you have some evidence to point out as to why "You have to get religious before you start mentioning rights."

Probably yeah but surely atheism shouldn't discriminate, where's all the chillah buddah men eh ?

What discrimination? Those articles I linked to are about how atheism does not exclude morality.
[/quote]

[xdavidx]

this little link kept me going for an hour or so at work last week. slightly OT, but since this is swinging towards a discussion about religion anyway...

[alien_syndm]

Misanthropy you are not even worth bothering replying to. I quite like having discussions on here where people aregue their point. Alan G I shall reply to your post later on.

[alien_syndm]

OK I can't be arsed with this debate anymore and am going to exercise my right to not give a fuck.