The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
johnlubba
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 11 votes the winner is...
johnlubba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,011 times Debate No: 59760
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (224)
Votes (11)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

The definition of Atheist is limited to the Meriman Webster definition. "A" meaning no, and "theist" meaning believer in God, and Atheist is one who believes there is no God and Meriman Webster Dictionary clearly supports this definition. Since Pascal's Wager implies God is there or may be there to pay off on wagering that He is or may be there, you cannot play Pascal's Wager as an atheist, as an atheist believes there is nobody to pay off the bet and therefore nothing to be won by playing Pascal's Wager.

Give a bit of a sample argument in the comments before I allow you to accept this challenge. I don't want another battle over definitions. Plain English only please, if you need a dictionary to define "won", you are not qualified for this debate.
johnlubba

Con

I gladly accept the debate and shall proceed to negate the arguments put forward by LMGIG,

My opponent insists on using the definition of the word "athiest" from the Merriam webster dictionanary, In such the word atheist is defined as a disbelief in God and A critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Even using this highly contreversal definiton, I still believe LMGIG has a very weak case against atheists who can not win Pascals wager. and I shall proceed to show you why.

Pascasls wager in short is as follows.
Believe in this case the Christian God and you gain eternal life in heaven, dis-believe in God and you lose the oppurtunity to gain a place in heaven.

Blaise Pascal could be wrong, God may exist and yet still reward atheists although they have not believed in him,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

Character limiit
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Atheism says there is no God. Where are the atheists now, all the ones who have so boldly stated on DDO that there is no God? Pascal's Wager implies God is or may be there so it is best to live your life in respect of the possibility that He is there and you don't want Him to be angry with you. Atheism asserts that there is no God, so there is no way possible an ahteist can win in Pascal's Wager, and there is no reason for an atheist to even take Pascal's Wager seriously as any kind of guidance of advice on how to conduct their lives.

I didn't know this debate would become nothing but repeated attempts by my opponent to change the meaning of atheist.
Do atheists no longer understand the roots of words and their meanings? "Pathy" means "feelings" . "Apathy" means
"no feelings" "Theos" means "God" "Atheos" meanst "no God" "Atheist" is a person who says there is no God. For an atheist, there is nobody to pay off in Pascal's Wager and no reason to bet.
johnlubba

Con

Notice my opponent did not attack the biblical quote I provided as a rebuttal to Atheists who can not win Pascal wager, This argument is dropped

The quote makes a reference to those who are spiritually blind and indicates they are exempt from sin simply because they are unable to notice that God exists,

An atheist may deny God exists simply because he does not see good enough reason to believe in Him and therefore lacks a belief in God, but this dis-belief is honest not dis-honest, so therefore he has no sin for dis-believing or rejecting the idea of God. It is those who have experienced God in their lives who are subject to losing the wager because they have seen by way of experience somehow that God exists, then if they choose to reject God they are subject to losing the wager.

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

KJV

The above quote exempts true atheists from sin if God exists.
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

The wager cannot be won by an atheist because an atheist believes there is no God to pay off on the wager. Pascal's Wager requires the belief that God is there of that He may be there. Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists cannot play the wager and remain atheists, and they can't win the wager according to their own beliefs as they deny that God is there with no possibility that He is there.

I don't know what you are talking about in your arguments, how am I supposed to respond to something that seems incoherent? The debate is not about sin or who is exempt from sin, and it is not about throwing stones. The topic of the debate is Atheists believe there is no God, so it is not possible for them to win in Pascal's Wager. Sin and throwing stones has nothing to do with it. I really don't know what you were trying to say, I could not make sense out of it.
johnlubba

Con

LMGIG Argument is flawed by claiming that because an atheist lacks a belief in God that there isn't a God to pay atheists off

But this doesn't have do be the case, Just because atheists don't believe in God it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, the same applies to a theist, just because a theist believes God exists it doesn't mean God has to exist, God may or may not exist but His existence is not dependant on our belief system.

Therefore even if an atheist denies that God exists simply because he see's no reason to accept such belief, it doesn't mean he can not win Pascal's wager, Moreover an atheist who sincerely believes God does not exist has every chance of being exempt from sin, which is the qualification to enter the kingdom of God. It is those who have experienced God and hold strong beliefs in Gods existence who are most likely to lose the wager, because once they have such experience and then reject God their sin remains.

Thus an atheist has more chance of winning the wager
Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

The only payoff from God that anybody gets is death for our sins. That is the only payoff we have earned, and we can't earn anything better. There is no way for anybody to win in Pascal's Wager. You either have eternal life now and heaven is your home or you have eternal death and you lose your soul and everything is lost in the fire of Hell. You are fooling yourself if you think that you or anybody else can win anything in a Wager concerning God.
johnlubba

Con

If God exists then the reward for the wager is eternal life in the kingdom of heaven, It is not necessary for an atheist to even be conscious of the wager or even of God to win the reward, If God exists then an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of heaven, simply by default, this is because an athiest is exmept from sin if he has not seen any evidence to believe in God, it is the believers who are most likely to lose the wager, because they claim to know God exists and this makes them subject to sin if they then reject God in their lives. an atheist on the other hand does not claim to know God, see God or have evidence for God, thus he is emempt from being guilty of rejecting God and therefore has no sin.

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
John 9 41
KJV

Jesus is refering to blindness to those who had no means of knowing God therefore they are without sin.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 days ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood medv4380 Tied
Agreed with before the debate: - - 0 points
Agreed with after the debate: - - 0 points

Made more convincing arguments: - - 3 points

Total points awarded: 3 1

Reasons for voting decision: "If an atheist places a chip against God, the atheist is saying God is there to place a chip against and is no longer an atheist " Con (LifeMeansGodIsGood) won with this statement.

Bizzare logic like my opponent's is tiring for me to try to understand, but I think muddled through enough to see he is trying to prove that an athesit is exempt from sin. So I guess he is saying that no matter how many whorish women an atheist vistis, no matter how many virtuous women an atheist rapes, no matter how many people an atheist kills (and some atheists do things like this, if one atheist is exempt from sin, then all must be), the atheist goes to heaven free from sin? Comeon, give me a break.
johnlubba

Con

LMGIG Has severly misconstrued the debate topic and that is if an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of God, simply because he is an atheist, I gave reason that shows an atheist, who is somebody who simply lacks a belief in God is able to be exempt from sin simply because he see's no good reason or evidence to believe God exists.

I do not have to defend why a rapist or a killer can not win the wager.

I only have to defend why an atheist can win the wager, and I have done this by showing that those who can not see God and find no genuine reason to believe in God in all sincerity, then he has no sin in this regard, because he simply does not see that God exists.

But those who claim to have seen the light and claim to have experienced God are subject to lose the wager if they live thier lives not according to Gods way.

The resolution has been negated and furthermore my arguements dropped.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
224 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
@ flippen

"Can you show me some Biblical prophecies that are proven to have been manipulated? Just curious."

I am going to answer this by taking one of your examples: Weapons of mass destruction must exist (Luke 21:26). This is a very clear example of manipulating a so called prophecies. First, if you look this verse up in a commentary...well...no commentary I have ever read has discussed this as being a verse about weapons of mass destruction.

There is good reason for that:
26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27"Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.

You have to read the next verse. This is not a prediction of weapons of mass destruction. The heavens are shaking because Jesus is returning. This type of cherry picking of verses is very popular in so called prophecies.

"Increase in wars, famines, and earthquakes (Matthew 24:7)"

Actually the verse doesn't say that: "7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes." The verse says there will be wars, famines and earthquakes. It doesn't say there will be an increase. So this is a way to manipulate the "prophecy."
There is another type of way to manipulate a "prophecy" at play here. Saying something so vague that it can pretty much apply to anything. There are always wars. Always have been. Probably always will be. Famines occur often. Earthquakes happen everyday. Millions of them. And just so you know...2012 had fewer earthquakes then 2011.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
"Once again, I don't see anything wrong with my argument. If the Bible is true would it not be reasonable to conclude that there is a God?"

@flippen

When you say "true" I am guessing that you are referring to historical accuracy. Again, one can not assume that because a document is accurate in one thing (historical accuracy) then it must be accurate in a completely other thing (supernatural deities). There are many conspiracy theories that have historical and scientific facts in them, but that doesn't mean that they are accurate about everything.

"Concerning the end times, biblical prophecies are being fulfilled right before own eyes."
The end of times has "been happening" for hundreds of years. As I said last time: I remember very clearly sermons on Desert Shield/Storm being the beginning of the end. I remember that it clearly fulfilled several prophecies. That has been going on for a long time. More of this will be visited in the prophecies.
Posted by Flippenout 2 years ago
Flippenout
@macaztec

Once again, I don't see anything wrong with my argument. If the Bible is true would it not be reasonable to conclude that there is a God? The question is then, is the Bible consistent with the evidence? If it is, then it is perfectly logical to come to the conclusion that there is a God. I'm not saying that it would prove the existence of God but I am saying that it would be reasonable to conclude there is a God.

You say that the prophecy concerning Quetzalcoatl proves that other religious prophecies have been fulfilled yet you go on to say that it was manipulated? There's no doubt that some religious prophecies have been manipulated to look as though they were fulfilled but that doesn't necessarily apply to all prophecies. Can you show me some Biblical prophecies that are proven to have been manipulated? Just curious.

Concerning the end times, biblical prophecies are being fulfilled right before own eyes. According to Bible prophecy, we are living in the last days. To just give a few examples of prophecies that are being fulfilled before our very eyes, here are 15:

1. Increase in wars, famines, and earthquakes (Matthew 24:7)
2. Godlessness in last days (2 Timothy 3:1-5,7)
3. Gospel will be preached throughout world (Matthew 24:14)
4. Israel re-established as nation (Ezekiel 34:13)
5. The language Hebrew revived (Zephaniah 3:9)
6. Increase in knowledge and travel (Daniel 12:4)
7. Return of Ethiopian Jews to Israel (Zephaniah 3:10-11)
8. Technology for Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-17)
9. Plans for one world government
10. Weapons of mass destruction must exist (Luke 21:26)
11. Understanding of Prophecy (Daniel 12:8-9)
12. Denial of Second coming (2 Peter 3:3-4)
13. Uniformitarianism increased (2 Peter 3:4)
14. Increasing persecution of Christians (Matthew 24:9)
15. Increasing pestilence (Luke 21:11)

All of these prophecies have either been fulfilled or are in the process of being fulfilled. It is all coming togethe
Posted by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
@Adam.. yet he's still losing.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
@flippen

"1. The Bible refers to one God throughout both the Old and New Testaments.
2. The Bible is supported to be a reliable historical document.
3. Therefore, it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is a God."

Once again circular reasoning.

You are saying that because the Bible says there is a God AND the fact that the Bible has historical facts that God must exist.

The Black Death killed a lot of people (historical fact). There is only one god and his name is Hruumupuaa (claim of a god). I just stated a historical fact and claimed knowledge of only one god. Does that mean that Hruumupuaa exists?

I asked if you had ever heard of Quetzalcoatl. The basic prophecy is that the god Quetzalcoatl left but promised to return. Even the year was predicted. The god was described as white, bearded, etc. And what happened? Sure enough Cortez showed up and fulfilled the prophecy. The problem is that what really happened is that the story was made up after Spanish influence.

Prophecies are often manipulated to make them fit. Every major war has been Armageddon. I remember sitting in sermons and being shown Biblical evidence that Operation Desert Storm was fulfilling Biblical prophecies and that the rapture was around the corner.
Posted by Flippenout 2 years ago
Flippenout
@macaztec

How is it circular reason? In this case, here is what my argument would look like in syllogism format:
1. The Bible refers to one God throughout both the Old and New Testaments.
2. The Bible is supported to be a reliable historical document.
3. Therefore, it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is a God.

If a book could fulfill hundreds of prophecies accurately, would you believe it? If that same book was supported by archeology and other historical documents, would you believe it? Suppose then that the same book was written by about 40 different authors, over a time-span of 1500 years, in three languages, across three continents, covering 100's of controversial topics, and yet shared such amazing unity throughout the book (almost seems like it was written by a single author). And suppose that there was more evidence for the New Testament events concerning Jesus then there is for any other historical figure of his time (including Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great). Would you believe what the book has to say?

I believe in the Bible not just because it claims to be God-breathed. I believe the Bible because I have seen the evidence and it consistently supports it. Most importantly, I believe the Bible to be true because unlike other religious scriptures the prophecies contained in the Bible are fulfilled accurately.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
Havent i seen this debate 1 month before? I could have sworn...
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
@flippen

"Why can't I use the Bible? Is there something wrong with using the Bible as evidence?"

The simple answer.....it is circular logic.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
@Flippen Ever heard of Quetzalcoatl?
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
@Flippenout... You are so indoctrinated by your own beliefs that you refuse to accept anything that I might offer to the contrary anyway. I already explained how the numbers were manipulated. By reading your articles, they say multiple times that "scholars believe this or that". For instance the 7X rule that they used was because the 360 they predicted didn't pan out, so they were able to use 7 times that, then subtract a few years for one thing, then convert from Jewish to Roman years, etc... If that isn't blatantly obvious to you then you are beyond convincing. Those scholars had a plan in mind and they were going to make the prophecies work one way or another. The biblical prophecies are mostly like that... where they make a vague prediction and then down the road people do some playing with words in order to make it fit. Not to mention many of the "fulfilments" were merely stories that are not proven, written by people who read the original prophecies.

If you want archaeological proof that contradicts the bible, go read up about a global flood that never happened during the time the bible says it did. Christian scholars will try to say it happened but there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood of the scale they talk about in the story of Noah. http://ncse.com... this link shows just a few of the holes in the flood theory. And the bible has no evidence of anything miraculous. Yes, some of the people in the bible might have existed, but that does not make all of the supernatural stories automatically true. It is not my job to prove your book wrong, it is your job to prove it right, and no one has ever been able to successfully prove the bible to be the inerrant word of God... in fact many people have proven it to be quite errant.

I may come across as a bit hostile, and that is because I get very frustrated with stupidity and ignorance and am not always my best self when confronted by both in such a w
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a better job with logical placement (wording and syntax) but both failed to truly encapsulate the reality of the wager itself in context. Con's arguments have no context relating to the actual Wager referring to a very specific set of rules and a very specific deity and theistic system specifically created to provide the differential between the validity of irrational belief within the context of gain and loss.
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: it's not that i think poorly of atheists prospects of eternal life. it's just that literally, pro is correct that if pascal's wager is true, atheists cannot benefit from it.
Vote Placed by medv4380 2 years ago
medv4380
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro Spamming the comments like a bot on steroids to get the debate on the front page. Sources to Con for citing bible verses to support his argument. Argument to Con because Pro failed to respond to Cons argument in round 1, and Con soundly refuted Pro's "they can't be atheists" claim.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won. Pro, stop posting the same debate topic 0ver and over again. It's becoming annoying, especially because you don't bring anything new to the table any time you re post this debate.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no real arguments. Con at least made an attempt to.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro really made no good points
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Same debate, different day. On this day, I know of the pascal wager, though.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for spamming comment section.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Again, same topic. . . . . Lost again. . .
Vote Placed by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
LifeMeansGodIsGoodjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to read the context of his own quotes. Not believing in god does not exempt one from sin. Its not even a strong argument for pascals wager.