The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NathanDuclos
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
NathanDuclos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,596 times Debate No: 59258
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (77)
Votes (5)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Since an atheist asserts there is no God, then the atheist must also assert by default that Pascal's Wager cannot be won, because if it is possible for Pascal's Wager to be won and a person can gain eternal life or heaven by living the best or the most moral and or altruistic life possible, that would mean God is there to honor the Wager. Atheists assert God is not there. so the atheist must assert that it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager.

On this, I agree with the atheists. It is not possible to win Pascal's Wager.

For my opponent to argue that it is possible to win Pascal's Wager, he or she must agree that God is there to make it possible. If God is not there, it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager, and in this debate my opponent is excluded from saying God is not there in order to argue it is possible to win Pascal's wager. I say it is not possible to win in Pascal's Wager.
NathanDuclos

Con


Dear Pro. . .


Thank you again for putting yourself out there. I hopefully will do better this time to provide a stimulating opponent. I am assuming (hopefully not in err) that same rules as last time. . . Can you link an acceptable dictionary on line for reference for definitions like “won” and such . . . And a page that references “Pascale’s wager” just the definition, so we have a mutual reference for it. . . . Dealer’s choice. . . I am familiar with Pascale’s Wager; I just don’t want us talking by each other on semantics as I know you abhor them.


I am eagerly awaiting your argument. . .


Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

I can't argue with a boy who needs the word "won" defined.
NathanDuclos

Con

Dear Pro

The reason I wanted a dictionary are many. I learnt very quickly as I read your debates and have debated you before, you mix terms and play with words extremely well. So rather than needling words or allowing wrongly defined terms, I wanted a neutral 3rd party as an impartial arbitrator. The appeal to an outside dictionary was not just for ‘won’ but specifically for ‘won‘ and such. After researching several arguments of yours, the best tactic in an argument against you is to define terms, words and where the BOP lay. Several people would have easily won had they defined the terms first.


As we only have a few rounds, and you have not bothered to present an argument I will treat your original address as the first round.


Your first statement, from which your entire argument is derived, is completely and utterly false.


You stated - ‘since an atheist asserts there is no god’


why a dictionary is essential . . . .


Your stated definition of an atheist is completely incorrect – An atheist asserts you have not met the burden of proof to make a god claim with any certainty ‘yet’, or a specific god claim 'yet'. An Anti-theist is someone who asserts there is not a god. They are vastly different.


Clarification of Claim. . .


Pascal’s wager is not a claim as you’re presenting it. It’s a response to a very specific theist question on shifting the BOP. If the theists asks the question ‘what if your wrong?’ the response of ‘Pascal’s wager’ is putting the BOP back on the person asserting the claim. At no point has an atheist denied a god exists with Pascal's Wager, or the wager cannot be won, there asking how is it that a theist can have sure hope he has purchased the correct ticket, when every other ticket own claims the same, using the same types of arguments.


If you use the correct definition of atheist your argument and claim falls apart, completely.

Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Here is my first round opening argument which you seem to be ignorant of, so I'm repeating it for you.

For my opponent to argue that it is possible to win Pascal's Wager, he or she must agree that God is there to make it possible. If God is not there, it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager, and in this debate my opponent is excluded from saying God is not there in order to argue it is possible to win Pascal's wager. I say it is not possible to win in Pascal's Wager.

If you are not going to put up an argument, why did you take the debate? Do I need to give you a dictionary link for "put up"? Did you decice you understand the word "won" well enough so I don't have to give you a dictionary link for that word?
NathanDuclos

Con

Dear Pro

You have no made an argument; you have presented several statements and a single claim. You abdicated round 2 on the presumption I wasn't serious and stupid, when I was serious and actually being quite intelligent in nailing down terms and definitions. Now you have called me ignorant. However, even as an athiest, I understand your anger and accept it as a by product of your faith.


As to the debate

I am in the position of Con. I am here to refute your argument. You have not presented one.

You state - "For my opponent to argue that it is possible to win Pascal's Wager, he or she must agree that God is there to make it possible."

This is not an argument, it’s a statement. That is true. If A then b

You State - "If God is not there, it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager,"

This is not an argument, it’s a statement. That is true. If no A then no B.

you state - "in this debate my opponent is excluded from saying God is not there in order to argue it is possible to win Pascal's wager."

Weird request, as it could argue a afterlife without a god, but I agree to your request.

You state - I say it is not possible to win in Pascal's Wager.

This is not a statement, but a claim. What is your argument to support it? As this is round 4, can you please get to it soon, so I can provide a rebuttal to your argument, so you can rebut my but. Besides repitition, praying, calling me names. I would love to hear it so we can actually start the debate.

Love Nathan



Ps, thank you for praying for me. However I would appreciate you not casting spells on me, or presuming that you know better than god what my best interest are.

Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Yeah, right, getting angry at your dodging of the debate and using the tactic of claiming you don't clearly understand the meaning of simple words like "won" and "atheist" and "such" is because of my faith and not because of the frustration of having to run around in circles with you as you cry about your inability to clearly understand the meaning of "won".

Atheist has always meant "a person who says there is no God" and always will. If you think you show how smart you are by obscuring the meaning so that an atheist is an agnostic and the definition for agnostic is the same as the definition of atheist unless you add prefixes or suffixes to make clear distinctions, do it in debates with people other than me, please.

An atheist says there is no God, therefore it is not possible for an atheist to win Pascal's Wager because Pascal's Wager implies that God may there and it is the safest bet to live your life in respect of the possibility that God cares about what you do with your time on earth. Atheism is an assertion that God is not there, therefore it is impossible for an atheist to believe they could win anything by ordering their life according to Pascal's Wager.
I agree with atheists that it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager, but I agree on this point for different reasons that the atheist. My reasons for agreeing with them are not the subject of this debate.

Because of my opponents manner of denying clear understanding of definitions of words, I have lost interest in even reading his arguments. It seems like a waste of time arguing with a guy who is going to ask me to read his requests for a dictionary definition of words like "won" and "such".

I don't even want to take the time to do spell check for this, but I guess it is a courtesy to the readers. My opponent can make up his own definitions of words no matter how they are spelled, and probably find some modern dictionaries that say the meanings of words have changed.
NathanDuclos

Con

My Dearest Pro...

Thank you for your response. I am sorry you’re frustrated over the definition of words. Perhaps if you offered a dictionary in the beginning like I asked, this would not have happens. But thank you for acknowledging that you do not read responses or take them seriously.

As you have posted a link in the comments to a dictionary term, I would suggest that you look down where several people actually put in a complaint on the term. Also that was 5th in my link for google, 4 in yahoo search and it didn't even show in the first page of MSN. I do not think you were being intellectually honest when you put that page, but specifically looked for the first thing that confirmed your bias. However I fully admit that most theists have no idea what an atheist is.

As for your response. I am still waiting for you to present an argument to your claim.

Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Dearest and loveliest of Cons,

My argument from the beginning of this debate has remained unchanged and unchallenged by you except when you attempted to insist I am not using the proper definition of "atheist". The strength of your misguided position rests on your assertion that I am using an incorrect definition of "atheist" in order to assert that since an atheist believes there is no God, it is not possible for an atheist to win Pascal's Wager; as Pascal's Wager implies it is possible for God to be there while atheism says there is no God.

Your accusation of my misinterpretation of the word "atheist" is in your words "If you use the correct definition of atheist your argument and claim falls apart, completely." at the end of your Round 2 argument, and you seem to be standing by this concept attempting to disprove the fact that a person who says there is no God cannot possibly believe there is anything to win for them in Pascal's Wager, because Pascal's Wager is based on the premise that it is possible God is there.
Supporting my assertion and definition of the word "atheist" is the Webster/Merman Dictionary which states very plainly the definition of the word "atheist" I am holding to is correct. I never imagined the meaning of the word would have been broadened and obscured by modernists such as yourself,
Modernistic evolution of the meaning of the word would require a new word to replace "atheist", and the correct word for the broadened definition you are trying to ignore my argument with would be "agnostic" This debate is not about agnosticism . I do not require any dictionary definition of any word I have used in this debate, but for your sake and the sake of voters who may be trying to make an honest decision in who had the better arguments here, as much as I disdain muddying a debate by denying understanding of simple words, the Merman/Webster definition of atheist is here:http://www.merriam-webster.com....
NathanDuclos

Con

Dear Pro

Thank you for your views. I would debate you on many things as I truly enjoy your debates, though obviously for different reasons. By the way, thank you for posting a dictionary in the closing remarks, rather than the opening remarks. If you had done it sooner, we might have actually had a debate.

Rebuttal 1 - Terms
I didn"t want to go forward with ill-defined terms or a statement I felt was misrepresentation of atheist point of view (as theist are want to do in many cases in representing those of others faith or my point of view).

Rebuttal 2 - Conceded
Not arguing in the way you wanted, you started a debate elsewhere and admitted you don"t take this one serious.

Rebuttal 3 - your round 1 claim
In round 1, your statement supporting you is false. Pascal"s wager is not a claim by Atheist. We do not go around Pascal wagering people in opening remarks of debates. It is specific response to a ridicules claim by theist of "what if you"re wrong". It shifts the bop back to the theist to prove you are right, not we are wrong.

Rebuttal 4
"Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree. " For this to be true, you would have to admit there is no way for you to know your specific faith is right. You however believe in a very specific well defined god who miraculously agrees with you on everything. YOU DO NOT AGREE with Pascal"s wager, which means your original statement is false as you have chosen a ticket(specific faith) for Pascal"s wager.

Closing
You are pro. You say repeatedly it"s not possible, you believe it is not possible, and chose a single source to support you. You as Pro, not Me as Con, have the BOP, and did not bother to debate till your last round. I feel that my pre-emptive rebuttals are sufficient in previous statements. I have enjoyed it, I hope you enjoy the reading of it as a voter and best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
77 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
Thanks for voting and participating. I appreciate it. . .
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
if you say there is no God who created all things, life's value certainly is questionable. God values life and especially His creatures which he endowed with free will, reasoning, and creative powers like His because He is good and He enjoys Himself and He enjoys all of His creatures who do what He designed them to do, to enjoy the freedom He gave them honorably, and to give their Creator all of the honor and glory for the life He gave them.

Why should a man complain about the punishment for his sins? God does not willingly afflict or grieve people. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. All who are turned against Him will be turned into the fire of Hell. God is not willing that any shoudl perish, but that all should come to repentance. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Life Means God is Good!!!!! That is why it's value is unquestionable!!! For crying out loud, repent and believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you will be saved from the fire of Hell!! God Himself (Jesus Christ) died in your place to pay for your crimes against Him and rose from the dead so He is just to punish your violations of His holy law with the fire of Hell if you reject His payment for your sins and you refuse His offer of pardon through the blood he paid with for you......God's gift offer is eternal life, salvation from the fire of Hell which we all deserve! Recieve the LORD JESUS CHRIST as your Saviour through faith and you will be a child of God and heaven
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
if you say there is no God who created all things, life's value certainly is questionable. God values life and especially His creatures which he endowed with free will, reasoning, and creative powers like His because He is good and He enjoys Himself and He enjoys all of His creatures who do what He designed them to do, to enjoy the freedom He gave them honorably, and to give their Creator all of the honor and glory for the life He gave them.

Why should a man complain about the punishment for his sins? God does not willingly afflict or grieve people. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. All who are turned against Him will be turned into the fire of Hell. God is not willing that any shoudl perish, but that all should come to repentance. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Life Means God is Good!!!!! That is why it's value is unquestionable!!! For crying out loud, repent and believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you will be saved from the fire of Hell!! God Himself (Jesus Christ) died in your place to pay for your crimes against Him and rose from the dead so He is just to punish your violations of His holy law with the fire of Hell if you reject His payment for your sins and you refuse His offer of pardon through the blood he paid with for you......God's gift offer is eternal life, salvation from the fire of Hell which we all deserve! Recieve the LORD JESUS CHRIST as your Saviour through faith and you will be a child of God and heaven
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
yeah, right, getting angry at your dodging debate and using the tactic of claiming you don't clearly understand the meaning of simple words like "won" and "atheist" is because of my faith and not because of the frustration of having to run around in cirlces with you as you cry about your inabilitity to clearly understand the meaning of "won".
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
put up your arugment and use your dictionary definitions of atheist to try to twist the meaning to defend your mistakes in the last round. What other choice do you have? You just insisted my argument falls apart if Atheist does not mean a person who say there is no God. Really, you just conceded and now you must back up your mistake with a slew of referrals of modern attempts to obscure and change the definition of atheist......don't dilly dally
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
the definition of "atheist" has always been and always will be a person who says there is no God. People just try to wiggle into obscure meanings trying to avoid admitting their true feelings and attitude toward God.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
people are afraid to flat out say they believe there is no God because they know they cannot prove that and they appear arrogang when they say that. So some 'intellectual elites" decided to be agnostics rather than atheist because they think they can sound smarter using an agnoostic argument.......which is still an atheistic argument, but it is the cowardly way of saying a person rejects God.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you are finding people to agree with you because they think they make up their own meanings for words. That's crazy. If you don't know what a word means (do you need me to give you a dictionary link for the word "means"? how can you expect anybody to know what you are saying? I can't help it if you want to define a word according to popular vote rather than according to the actual meaning of the word.

This is sssooooooo stupid to tme.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
atheist means a person who beleives there is no God. You can expand the meaning of the word all you want to change it into something different. Why don't you change the meaning of aatheist into buffalo chicken wings and eat it?
Posted by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
odd, I did a search for atheist and found three tha supported me. . . Funny that you found one that supported you. And funny the page you sited, there was a whole debate over the word and how it has changed in the last 10 years. . . .

https://www.google.ca...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.urbandictionary.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
LifeMeansGodIsGoodNathanDuclosTied
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 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: Con attempted to set some ground rules for a solid debate by asking for Pro to confirm definitions of the major terms used in this debate. Pro responded with mockery and insults. It was pathetic on Pro's side, to act that way to a typical debate request of establishing the grounds for the debate at hand. Pro made no real arguments... so Con easily wins the "more convincing arguments" score. Conduct absolutely goes to Con. Spelling and grammar were poor from both sides. No relevant sources were really used enough to give a point either way.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
LifeMeansGodIsGoodNathanDuclosTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm removing my vote, because I realize I voted unfairly. I don't like pro spamming the comment section' but it shouldn't affect comment points.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LifeMeansGodIsGoodNathanDuclosTied
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 drop arg.s
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LifeMeansGodIsGoodNathanDuclosTied
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 hasn't presented a reasonable argument, thus he has not really asserted his BOP commitment. Con has highlighted Pro's attempts to obfuscate his argument with his misconception of Atheism. Pascal's Wager is not a rational wager, it is a Coercion Fallacy, produced by Blaise Pascal to Coerce Atheists into belief in God. Atheists see it for the Fallacy it is.
Vote Placed by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
LifeMeansGodIsGoodNathanDuclosTied
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 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: CON had better arguments. Most of this debate was pointless though, since you guys used most of it fighting over defining words.