The Instigator
kwagga_la
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Deb-8-A-Bull
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheists have everything to lose and nothing to gain

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 2 votes the winner is...
kwagga_la
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 810 times Debate No: 91974
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

kwagga_la

Pro

Atheists have a 50/50 percent chance not to be held accountable for not believing in God. Christians cannot be held accountable at all for believing in God. The odds favor the Christian believing in God.

My position is as follows: If I believe in God and it turns out God did not exist then I don"t have to face any accountability for my disbelief. If I am right that the Christian God does exist then eternal awards awaits me when I die and still do not have to face any accountability and do not have to face any judgment. If the atheist is right he or she will not have to face any accountability for not believing in God. But should the atheist be wrong he/she will be held accountable and will have to face judgment accordingly. It is therefore my resolution that that it is better to believe in the Christian god than not to believe in Him.
Deb-8-A-Bull

Con

I don't have time sorry .
So I'll use the 1st round for acceptance.
I accept
Debate Round No. 1
kwagga_la

Pro

No problem Deb. I"m having a very interesting discussion with some other debaters in the comments section. I appreciate their input tremendously. I am going to paste some of what was said there to illustrate an argument that I call the Accountability Argument. I do this just for the sake of stating my position in this round.

If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God. Nothing to worry about.
If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, and he did not exist, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because I will cease to exist. I have nothing to worry about.
If the atheist die, and the God of the Bible exists, then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about.
If the atheist die and there is NO god, then the atheist will cease to exist and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about.

If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God.
If I believe in the God of the Bible and die and rejected Buddhism, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because I will re-incarnate. I have nothing to worry about.
If a Buddhist dies, and the God of the Bible exists, then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief in the God and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about.
If a Buddhist die, and the God of the Bible do not exist, then he or she will re-incarnate and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about.

In each case a belief in the God of the Bible presents the best probabilities not to be held accountable and face judgement.
Deb-8-A-Bull

Con

Deb-8-A-Bull forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
kwagga_la

Pro

The argument I present seems similar to what is known as Pascal's wager but it is not the same as Pascal's wager.

The accountability argument is based on contrasting many different views held by many different religions and different people. It does not matter if the view about the God in question is correct or not because the argument leaves open the option that I might be wrong and therefore the other person is correct and will therefore not be held accountable. Therefore the "which God argument" against Pascal"s wager does not work against the accountability argument. There is uncertainty in death and you cannot, as an atheist, verify that you will cease to exist, just like everyone else cannot verify their particular beliefs until they die. The argument weighs the probabilities to see which view IN THE END is more favorable.

A general description is that "Pascal argues that a rational person should LIVE (emphasis mine) as though God exists and seek to believe in God"". https://en.wikipedia.org.... Pascal's wager was about the odds of serving God based on whether he existed or not. Although Pascal was a Christian he spoke in general terms and made general references and said that everyone MUST wager.

The Accountability argument is more specific and focused on examining beliefs rather than how to live. The accountability can also be used to contrast religions and even religious views within groups claiming the same origins to determine which view is more favorable. For example: Jehovah"s Witnesses says that death means one will cease to exit. Nothing to worry about when you die and were not a Jehovah "s Witness. If the Bible is correct, when the Jehovah"s Witness die, he or she will be judged because they rejected Jesus as God who is our Savior. Something to worry about.
Instead of betting on the tree (the wager) you seek to know the tree by its fruits.
Deb-8-A-Bull

Con

Deb-8-A-Bull forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kwagga_la

Pro

Nothing to add.
Deb-8-A-Bull

Con

Deb-8-A-Bull forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
kwagga_la

Pro

Perhaps some other time then. All the best to you Deb.
Deb-8-A-Bull

Con

Deb-8-A-Bull forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
**Perhaps the Pope needs to correct his Theology.
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
Who said "My Christian view states that we cannot do any works to gain salvation"?
Who said "I have stated clearly in the argument that Jesus is the ONLY way to get saved"?

There is no contradiction at all. What is THE ONLY WAY I am talking about? Did I contradict myself and say it is a work? To validate your assumption you must point out where I stated the ONLY way is WORKS. Perhaps you should have asked what the way is that I am talking about before you made the assumption that THE ONLY WAY is works or a work. THE WAY is an expression of the direction to follow. All my statement says is Jesus is the only way. So let me tell you what the ONLY WAY IS to GET SAVED. It is faith. The ONLY way you can get saved is by faith in Jesus Christ as your Saviour. Faith is not works. So therefore, you did not catch anything. You assume a lot without knowing basic Bible theology. That is one of the reasons I asked you to answer 3 basic questions earlier.
The Pope can say whatever he likes, the BIBLE which priveds the history upon which the Pope claims his authiory says:

Ephesians 2:8-9 States:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Perhaps the pop needs to correct his Theology.
Posted by Ragnar 12 months ago
Ragnar
I don't have an outlook on what you have to believe, I did however catch you disagreeing with yourself.

Who said "My Christian view states that we cannot do any works to gain salvation"?
Who said "I have stated clearly in the argument that Jesus is the ONLY way to get saved"?

The second person is trying to do a precise piece of work for salvation, the first person said we cannot.

Interestingly enough both of them directly disagree with the pope (who insists on both good works and that atheists just like Christians can go to heaven).
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
Basically "The Tree will be known by its fruits"
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
@@Heirio No this is not Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager was about the odds of serving a God. based on whether he existed or not Although Pascal was a Christian he spoke in general terms and said that everyone MUST wager. The argument of accountabilty, as I call it, deals with death and the probabilty presentted in the afterlife. To explain it i will paste what i wrote previously in the comments: In the Argument it does not matter if the view about the God in question is correct or not because the argument leaves open the option that I might be wrong and therefore the other person is correct and will therefore not be held accountable. There is uncertainty in death and you cannot, as an atheist, verify that you will cease to exist, just like anyone else cannot verify their particular beliefs until they die. The argument weighs the probabilities to see which side IN THE END is more favorable. Pascal's main focus was on whether God existed or not, mine is not.
Posted by Heirio 12 months ago
Heirio
Kwagga_la, you're basically supporting Pascal's wager right?
Just to clarify, is that what this debate is about?
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
@Canis I hope you don't mind me asking. What was the turning point in your life that made you stop believing that God exist (i am assuming this is your view). I know the arguments, but what personal factor caused your disbelief?
Posted by canis 12 months ago
canis
I can imagine green elephants. As an atheist i can even imagine a god that will send all theist to "hell", because they have had the wrong belief.. All atheist would go to "heaven"......50/50.....
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
I only concede something if what you state is correct. However, you want to bind me to a particular option that best fits your view without giving me any other options, although other options clearly exists. There is uncertainty in death and you cannot, as an atheist, verify that you will cease to exist, just like anyone else cannot verify their particular beliefs until they die. Therefore, I started testing the accountability argument. I have a particular view. I based my view on the Bible, observation, historical and various other facts. You are entitled to your atheistic view which you base on some reason that convinced you to believe the way you do. I test my view by contrasting it with another view to determine which is more logical and favorable.
The argument is based on contrasting many different views held by many different religions and different people. It does not matter if the view about the God in question is correct or not because the argument leaves open the option that I might be wrong and therefore the other person is correct and will therefore not be held accountable. The argument weighs the probabilities to see which side IN THE END is more favorable.
I have stated clearly in the argument that Jesus is the ONLY way to get saved. The Catholics do not believe that, so when I made the argument using the Catholics I stated that Jesus is ONE of the ways to get saved referring to what the Catholics believe. The second sentence should have clarified that. "The Catholic Church teaches many ways to get saved." And Jesus is ONE of them.
I am curious, perhaps you can explain to me who the God of the Bible is according to the Bible"s definition. Can you perhaps tell me how to get saved according to how the Bible says you must be saved? Can you perhaps tell me what the Gospel of the grace of God is as defined by the Bible? I am asking because you seem to impose on me some preconceived understanding you have of what the Christian faith MUST be.
Posted by Ragnar 12 months ago
Ragnar
"My Christian view states that we cannot do any works to gain salvation."
Then you gain nothing with your calculated best to believe in God bit. You've effectively conceded the resolution.

You of course then disagree with yourself insisting " I will not be held accountable because ONE of the ways to get saved is through Jesus and I trust Jesus." Placing you as one of those "people out there who demand some act of worship and might even say it can affect your salvation but that is not according to the Bible I read or part of my theology I belive."

You are a very conflicted person to flip your core beliefs back and forth in the span of two minutes (the time between postings).
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
kwagga_laDeb-8-A-BullTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Full ff by con
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
kwagga_laDeb-8-A-BullTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro. Pro also was the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Pro by default.