The Instigator
Mark1068
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Athiests have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,555 times Debate No: 19230
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

Mark1068

Pro

Athiests claim to believe God does not exist. If this is true, how do athiests gain if they are right? When do they gain? If there is no God, we won't know till we die. The athiest can't even gloat, not even for one millisecond, about how right they were. There's no chance of winning...anything.

If they are wrong, and they (presumably) lived their lives as if God doesn't/didn't exist, they lose everything - for eternity.

Theists claim to believe God does exist. If they are right, they gain everything....for eternity. If there is no God, they lose nothing - not even the athiest vs. theist debate. The theist will never even suffer that they were wrong.

So, in the final analysis, athiesm is like going to a casino and playing roulette, betting everything on black - with full-knowlege there's no potential pay-off...ever.

As for theism, they go to the casino and bet everything on red - but they know red has the only chance of winning. If it turns out black wins, neither theists or athiests win anything. But if red wins, the theist wins everything - the athiest loses everything.

Only a perfect fool would bet everything on black. It CAN"T win - anything. It can only lose - everything.

It's the best example of perfect folly I can think of.

It's a good bet that in 100 years, everyone reading this will be in eternity...eternally. What possible argument exists to be athiest? It makes infinitely more sense to adopt theism (at least agnosticism), even if it requires pretending to believe.

There are some very intelligent athiests on this site. To them I ask "Why, in this life - the dead center of two eternities, where you place the ultimate bet - would you bet on black?"



Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for instigating this debate.

In order to negate the resolution, all I need to do show is that Pro has not been able to prove that atheists have nothing to gain and/or everything to lose.

There are many assertions made by Pro in order to try and get to this conclusion about atheists have nothing to gain and everything to lose, but as far as I can see they are just that assertions, unsupported, unsubstantiated assertions.

Assertion number 1) Pro says about atheists "If they are wrong, and they (presumably) lived their lives as if God doesn't/didn't exist, they lose everything - for eternity."

How does Pro know that in the event of not believing in the proposition that God exists that an atheist if wrong loses everything for eternity ?

Assertion number 2) Pro says about theists "Theists claim to believe God does exist. If they are right, they gain everything....for eternity."

On what basis does Pro claim that a theist gains everything if they believe in the proposition that God exists ?

Alot of religions reject this claim, for example in some sects of christianity "faith" in christ is the only way to heaven, according to some, you can believe that God exists all day long, but as long as you don't have "faith" in christ your hellbound. Clearly if this vision of the after life is correct, then the claim that a person gains everything if God exists and is a theist is false. As too the claim by some muslims that after hearing the claim that the Quran is the holy word of God and if you reject this claim guess what...........your hellbound.

Assertion number 3) If there is no God, they lose nothing - not even the atheist vs. theist debate. The theist will never even suffer that they were wrong.

Once again, if some form of christianity or islam or any number of faith based claims is correct then just being a theist with certain or lack of certain beliefs can result in a great loss.

At the core of Pros argument is this concept, a concept about practicality and pragmatism, not so much about truth but about placing your bets so to speak. Its not a unique argument and the most famous of this kind of argument is that of Pascal's Wager..."Pascal's Wager, also known as Pascal's Gambit, is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because one living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose." [1]

There are many counters to pascals wager, so I will only quickly bring up two.

1) Pascal was working of the foundation by God he really meant the christian God as he saw the christian God.

Trouble is this argument can be used for the Islamic God or any God. Best to believe in the Islamic God eh ? After all if your wrong you lose nothing, if your right.........paradise and virgins perhaps ?

2) There are numerous claims about God, even in the same religions there are different claims made about God.

As a matter of shear probability you should assume that your beliefs about God are wrong in some respect. If the hard atheist is going to get very bad results by having wrong beliefs about God, in this case about Gods non existence how much more so those who do believe in God yet also have wrong beliefs about God ? How about those who even commit evils and or inflict sufferings in the name of God ? who is the one who is really in danger here ?

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You pay a tenth of[q]mint, dill, and cumin,[r]yet you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice,mercy, and faith. These things should have been done without neglecting the others.24Blind guides!You strain out a gnat, yet gulp down a camel!" [2]

Sources

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager(Couldn't get link to show properly, see heading Things named after Blaise Pascal, at the bottom of this heading is the link on pascal's wager.

[2]http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mark1068

Pro

I thank Con for accepting the debate challenge.

First, I think Con is absolutely correct - I have no idea how God (should He exist) will judge.

So, let me clarify my proposition by adding 'risk' with respect to my reference(s) regarding eternity (via Divine Judgement). I knew my proposition was over-simplistic - aren't they all? Hence, further rounds of debate. I don't see the point in attempting to submit a lengthy, initial proposition before I know how my opponent will attempt to refute me. I could use 8000 characters in an attempt to produce a proposition that's beyond refute - it's impossible and a waste of time.

My point is, should God/Divine Judgement prove to be real, how would utterly denying Him in this life do anything but increase risking unfavorable judgement? To spend ones life denying His existence would mean that no act of virtue, no matter how good it may be, was done out of respect for their Creator. Denying one's Creator is, possibly, the worst offense possible. And, since we all are going to spend eternity in eternity (independent of God's existence or non-existence), it only makes logical sense to live life as if God and Divine Judgement exist. Agnostics admit God could exist. So, at least they can attempt to live a 'good' with their motive being 'should God prove to exist, He should be respected' - so, out of respect for a potential God, live their lives accordingly. Atheists, by denying God, can only offend God by doing so. Atheists can't even acknowledge His possibility - they wouldn't be atheist if they did. So, atheists (if wrong) increase their chances of an unfavorable judgement - they utterly disrespect Him in their denial of Him, and nullify their own good acts since their motive to perform those acts can't possibly be out of reverence for God. Again, does this warrant eternal hell - I have no idea. I think it logical to see how it can only increase the chance of unfavorable Divine Judgement and decrease the chance of a favorable one. By increasing risk, they increase their risk losing everything - and this makes the atheist philosophy foolish.

It could be that theists or agnostics do the same - their positions as theist or agnostic don't (intrinsically) make them 'risk-proof', but not because they are theist or agnostic. They, by acknowledging God or His possibility, could make themselves more accountable for their actions should they live 'evil' lives. But, their position as theist or agnostic doesn't preclude them automatically - they, at least, give themselves a chance to be credited for their good deeds because their motive in performing them could be done out of reverence for God. Plus, they can ask for and receive Divine forgiveness - atheists can't ask for forgiveness for their wrongs should a Divine Lawgiver exist. If they did, do so to 'play it safe' - they would then be agnostic.

A theoretical question for atheist - if it could be proved with absolute certitude that God does exist, and He is their Creator, wouldn't He be due some respect? I can't build a perfect deck - let alone the universe. My judgement of someone's life is worthless. But, should God be the Creator of everything and possess the power of Divine Judgment, respect is due Him - I think that's only logical. Denying His existence means the atheist has no respect for God whatsoever - none. It's impossible, and can only increase the gravity of this offense by arguing in favor of atheism to others. It's bad enough if I disrespect anyone who deserves it. It's all the more so when I convince others to do the same. Therefore, atheists gain nothing by being atheist insofar as they can only further risk losing everything (as it pertains to God's Judgement), simply by being atheist.

I didn't include any reference to specific religion(s) and the reason this debate is under philosopy. This debate could serve as a foundation to further debates that include religion. But, this debate is soley about athiesm, agnostocism, and theism.

How can athiesm, should God and Divine Judgement prove to be real, have a positive influence on their risking unfavorable judgement?
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Shouldn't atheists and everybody else who isn't a theist be an agnostic ?

A common complaint is the claim that if you can't prove that God doesn't exist in the most general sense of the term "God" you should be agnostic and not atheist. Just because you can't prove something does not exist does not warrant agnosticism for example...can we prove there is not an invisible undetectable alien mothership hovering above earth right now ? Answer No.

Because we can't prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable alien mothership hovering above earth right now does that mean we should believe that there is one ? Answer no.

Because we can't prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable alien mothership hovering above earth right now does that mean we should be agnostic towards the existence of invisible alien mother ship ? Not quite...........

Pro says..."Atheists can't even acknowledge His possibility - they wouldn't be atheist if they did."

This is false, MOST atheists don't claim that God in the most general sense can't exist. But like the alien mothership, although "possible" they don't believe its "actual".

Assertion number 1) Pro says about atheists "If they are wrong, and they (presumably) lived their lives as if God doesn't/didn't exist, they lose everything - for eternity."

I would like to point out a shift of ground on Pros part. In the first round they were making claims about atheists like If they are wrong, and they (presumably) lived their lives as if God doesn't/didn't exist, they lose everything - for eternity.""
But now in the second round Pro says..."My point is, should God/Divine Judgement prove to be real, how would utterly denying Him in this life do anything but increase risking unfavorable judgement?"

I don't accept this shift of ground. Also I would respond to this question with my own question, how would believing in God cause you don't really believe he exists but are hedging some sort of bet wouldn't do anything but risk unfavorable judgement ? Usually God as presented in perfect being theology is presented as approving of such things as honesty, integrity etc and dis approving of the opposites.

Not only does this give us good reason to not accept Pros advice about placing our bets, it also gives us a good reason as to why not anyone should engage in such behaviour whether theist, agnostic, or atheist.

Pro says... "To spend ones life denying His existence would mean that no act of virtue, no matter how good it may be, was done out of respect for their Creator. Denying one's Creator is, possibly, the worst offense possible"

This is not a good argument, cause sure its possible, but its also possible that believing in God in some attempt to place your bets is the worst offense possible, as an article on Iron Chariots says..."Rather than the typical Christian god, what if we hypothesize the possibility of a god who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers and punishes credulous believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians, "We cannot understand the ways of God," so it is conceivable that such a god would want to reward atheists." [1]

Assertion number 2) Pro says about theists "Theists claim to believe God does exist. If they are right, they gain everything....for eternity."

Pro doesn't have anything to back this up.

Countering Pascal

1) Pascal was working of the foundation by God he really meant the christian God as he saw the christian God.

Previously I ask the rhetorical question of "Trouble is this argument can be used for the Islamic God or any God. Best to believe in the Islamic God eh ? After all if your wrong you lose nothing, if your right.........paradise and virgins perhaps ?"

Now there is a point here, if we take Pros advice about placing our God bets, which God shall we place our bet in ? It seems the case that the the believer of a God who rewards paradise and virgins can use the exact same logic of placing ones bet on this God as Pro uses. Pro doesn't seem to have an answer for this dilemma.

2) There are numerous claims about God, even in the same religions there are different claims made about God.

Pro doesn't seem to dis agree with the proposition that evil and wrong doing in Gods name puts one at more risk than just doing evil or wrong doing not in Gods name. This concession refutes the claim about theists have nothing to lose as false and the argument that we should all become theists cause then we have nothing to lose is unsound.

Sources

[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...




Debate Round No. 2
Mark1068

Pro

In response to Con's assertion that I 'shifted grounds' by using 'Divine Judgement" and/or "risk" with respect to gain and loss regarding eternity, this is not a shift of ground. It's a clarification.

Nor was my roulette analogy anything more than an analogy - it was not a postulation. I used this analogy to amplify by way of simplifying the fundamental concept that it only makes sense to live life as though there is a God.

My resolution was designed to show that it is in a person's best interest to not be atheist - that believing there is no God can do nothing more than increase the risk of incurring unfavorable Divine Judgement. I didn't, in any way, take my argument to the level of religious choice. That would be a subject for a different debate (although I acknowledge my resolution would, logically, progress to questions about religious choice.) I didn't respond to Con's rhetorical question regarding Islam because I don't need to - I would be very willing to debate such concepts as Con is introducing about the validity of different religions - after this debate is done. I'm not evading his question - I'm just not responding to it. If I did, I would enable an evasion to begin. To bring specific religion into this debate is the only attempt at evasion I see - and it's not mine.

Furthermore, when Con said "if we take Pros advice about placing our God bets", when I never used the expression/description "God bets". This is an attempt by Con to change the reader's perception of the resolution proposed - its designed to make the resolution seem immature, or less serious by mi characterizing my position. Why, if my opponent has a valid, intelligent counterpoint, would Con need to resort to such tactics?? His repeated (I counted 9 times) efforts to trivialize my positing as 'betting' show he has no valid argument to the fundamental point I proposed. A valid counterpoint would support itself, if he would offer one. Since eternity is the ultimate destination we all face, the 'tone' of my proposition was not immature or trivial - as Con has attempted to make it seem - but one meant to be thought provoking.

*atheism - one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This definition is in Dictionary.com. It goes on to differentiate between atheism, agnosticism, infidel and skeptic:

-an atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or supreme beings.
-an agnostic is one who believes it's impossible to know for sure anything about God and refrains from religious commitment
-infidel means unbeliever, especially in Islam or Christianity
-a skeptic doubts and questions all doctrine and creeds.

To clarify (as opposed to 'shift grounds') what I mean by atheist; I mean 'one who denies the existence of deity or supreme beings'. Con, by stating atheists don't deny His existence but acknowledge His possibly, would be the definition of agnostic. In a sense, his definition of atheist could fit the less specific definition of atheist, but much better suited as agnostic when further clarification is needed - which it is here.

A point Con makes that I agree with - I think we will be judged according to whether we lived in obedience to our conscience. When I state it would make sense to be willing to adopt agnosticism (given the risks intrinsic to atheism), I'm not suggesting one deviate from what they believe true. On the contrary, a person who converts his thinking because this argument makes sense to him would be following his conscience - not violating it. (Actually, I think this brings the 'bet' mischaracterisation attempt to try # 10.)

Con asserts that I seem to have no problem with the proposition that evil and wrong doing in God's name puts one more at risk vs. evil/wrong done not in God's name. Again, there's not point to me responding as it deviates from the fundamental point. Oh, when you took my statement "theists have nothing to lose if they're wrong"

Lastly, Con says I have nothing to support my statement 'theists have everything to gain for eternity'. Again, I'm illustrating a fundamental point about attitude toward God and the potential effects it has. Obvious to me now that you got the point I was making (and got it clearly) when you first read the proposition. (I would 'bet' most of the readers did.) Your lack of valid rebuttals make it obvious. However, it's interesting how often you made reference to religion to validate some of your points. (Interesting, but I'm not going to count them.) My statement 'theists have nothing to lose if they are wrong" - the statement you took out of context and tried to apply here in support of your claim that I evaded this question - I don't recall ever seeing something taken MORE out of context. My statement exclusively pointed out that theists are wrong and God doesn't exist, they lose nothing by living life as if He did.

Con makes one thing very clear with his arguments - it validates, for me, why I don't submit long explanations when introducing a proposition......if you explain your proposition so well that no challenging argument can refute it, all that's left are silly arguments to debate with.

I'll look forward to Con's round. I give Con credit for taking this challenge - when I was first faced with it I was atheist. When the thought that my being a staunch atheist could, should I be wrong, keep me on the wrong side of the truth, it scared me. When it scared me a little, the fear showed I was agnostic. If I was atheist, it wouldn't scare me at all. Agnosticism eventually led to philosophical theism; then theism led me to investigate religion. etc.

























Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Shifting Ground

Pro responds they weren't shifting grounds, just adding clarification. Clarification are usually a good thing but I have an issue here in the resolution as it says Atheists have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

But going into round 3 Pro wants to argue that believing there is no God can do nothing more than increase the risk of incurring unfavorable Divine Judgement.

Please note there is a significant difference between the claim that atheism has everything to lose and atheism just adds risk of unfavorable divine judgment. Adding risk of unfavorable divine judgment is NOT the same as having everything to lose.

I stick to my claim that this is shifting ground and ask that Pro be held up to the resolution and not their later so called "clarification".

Shouldn't atheists and everybody else who isn't a theist be an agnostic ?

This is the last round and it looks like we are going to have to battle on some definitions, it sucks, but my hand is kinda forced here as Pro says..."Con, by stating atheists don't deny His existence but acknowledge His possibly, would be the definition of agnostic."

So what does it mean to "deny" something ?, well according to dictionary.com the source that Pro uses it means...

de·ny   [dih-nahy] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -nied, -ny·ing.
1.
to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
2.
to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition. [1]

As you can see the fact that you do not agree to the claim that God exists means you deny that God exists which makes you an atheist. Because as Pro said the definition of an atheist is..."an atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or supreme beings."

Responding to the mis-characterisation charge

Pro protests against my "God betting" remarks, going into this final round I will keep it strictly technical and I think I will be able to show that Pro has not been able to overcome my objections to their argument. But in my defense, Pro did start of with the whole betting analogy, Pro gave them self some liberty to add creative flare to equating atheism as foolish gamblers so I gave myself the liberty of looking at the theistic gamblers so too speak, he who is without sin perhaps ?

Assertion number 1) Pro says about atheists "If they are wrong, and they (presumably) lived their lives as if God doesn't/didn't exist, they lose everything - for eternity."

Once again, cause I don't accept pro shifting of the ground here, Pro has not been able to show that if the atheist is wrong they lose everything as opposed to their later claim that if atheists are wrong they add only risk to unfavorable divine judgment.

I bought up the counter argument that maybe the worst possible offense is to believe in the existence of God based on some sort of risk/reward analysis and thus one should not do it. Pro doesn't seem to dis agree that this is possible.

I bought up the possibility of a God who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers and punishes credulous believers, Pro doesn't seem to argue that this is impossible.

Assertion number 2) Pro says about theists "Theists claim to believe God does exist. If they are right, they gain everything....for eternity."

Pro points out they don't need to go into religious choice, I agree, nor do I expect them to cause that isn't the important counter argument I was making. The important point is where this kind of reasoning takes us. As I showed in the Islam example, the muslim can use the same kind of reasoning to support belief in the islamic God and the islamic paradise of virgins, after all if your wrong you lose nothing, if your right its only gain................sound familiar ?

Pro has not addressed this dilemma that THEIR reasoning creates and I submit its untenable and thus should be rejected and thus this assertion is unsupported.

I bought up perfect being theology and how such a perfect being, God if you will, wouldn't approve of belief that is based on some sort of risk/reward calculation as opposed to believing that God exists cause you actually believe that God exists. Pro does respond on this point where they say..."When I state it would make sense to be willing to adopt agnosticism (given the risks intrinsic to atheism), I'm not suggesting one deviate from what they believe true. On the contrary, a person who converts his thinking because this argument makes sense to him would be following his conscience - not violating it."

I don't think this refutes my argument here, remember Pascal Wager is all about that we should believe in God as though he exists even if we don't really believe that. If some one "converts" to theism then Pascal's wager is unnecessary. Pascal wager can only be applied to the person who does not believe that God exists, so its contradictory to say that a convert to theism believes in Pascal's wager been applied to themselves. But what about the agnostic adhering to Pascal wager ? Once again we have the problem of some one believing that God exists even though they don't really believe that God exists, is this the conversion of thinking that Pro is talking about ? If you believe that something exists even though you don't really believe it exists your lying to your self, and if your worried about violation of conscience you shouldn't lie to your self and I doubt lying to your self really makes "sense" to anyone.

I bought up the possibility doing evil in Gods name cause you believe that God exists could be worse than doing that same evil but not in Gods name. Pro doesn't seem to argue against this is indeed possible there fore refuting the claim that being theist means you gain everything if God exists.

Closing Remarks

Because there is a possible down side for theists this refutes the claim that the atheist should convert to theism cause if God exists theists have nothing to lose.

Because there is a possible gain for the atheist even if God exists, this refutes the claim that atheists have everything to lose if God exists and thus should convert to theism.

Pro has not being able to prove that athiests have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I thank Pro for the debate.

Vote Con

Sources

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mark1068 5 years ago
Mark1068
Still, no answer or explanation with respect to your 'observation'. I'm done wasting my time.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Your Original charge Mark was...Mark says..."Nothing to lose if they're wrong" meant, very clearly, wrong about God existing - not that theists have a license to commit wrong - his attempt to make it appear that I meant the latter was not mistake.

Mark says..."It was an intentional attempt to deceive. Con altered the statement to mean 'if theists do immoral things, they have nothing to lose because they believe in God'."

My observation that...""Pro doesn't seem to dis agree with the proposition that evil and wrong doing in Gods name puts one at more risk than just doing evil or wrong doing not in Gods name." in your mind means that I presented your argument as saying theists have a license to do evil ? sure mark...............

So tell you what mark, why don't you set up the debate again, this time I might actually put in a reasonable effort for the entire debate if you think you can justify pascals wager.

Oh, would you like to withdraw the charge that I presented your argument as saying that theists have a license to do evil ? go on mark, ask your self, what would Jesus do ? :)
Posted by Mark1068 5 years ago
Mark1068
Con - I copy and pasted the text in quotation marks below from your 3rd round of our debate.

"Pro doesn't seem to dis agree with the proposition that evil and wrong doing in Gods name puts one at more risk than just doing evil or wrong doing not in Gods name."

This is the sentence I was referring to. I included this in my last comment - the comment you were referring to when you stated that "I was ranting about other things and not backing up my claim".

Maybe you missed it but it's there. If you re-read my last comment you'll see it, I'm sure. After that, maybe you'll realize I wasn't 'ranting about other things' but backing up my claim.

Again, thank you for the debate - maybe we'll 'bump heads' again in the future.

Till then, enjoy the holiday season!
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Mark says..."Nothing to lose if they're wrong" meant, very clearly, wrong about God existing - not that theists have a license to commit wrong - his attempt to make it appear that I meant the latter was not mistake.

Mark says..."It was an intentional attempt to deceive. Con altered the statement to mean 'if theists do immoral things, they have nothing to lose because they believe in God'."

Show me where I suggested in anyway that your argument said that you were saying theists have a license to commit wrong.

How about you back up this claim, instead of ranting on about other things eh ?
Posted by Mark1068 5 years ago
Mark1068
I'm sorry if you're pissed, Con, but where in anything I wrote did I postulate that believing in God is a license to commit wrong without punitive consequence should there be Divine Judgment as you implied (and very specifically, to boot) that I claimed, inferred, postulated, or in anyway agreed with as you claim I did. Sorry Con, I never did.

I have already admitted my initial resolution was too simplistic. I introduced three new debates within 10 minutes the same night I did this one so that I could get the 3 debates needed to vote. I rushed my resolution and see the consequences of it.

Oh, when Con stated "Pro doesn't seem to dis agree with the proposition that evil and wrong doing in Gods name puts one at more risk than just doing evil or wrong doing not in Gods name.".......that basically implies I do agree with this proposition that you made. Why, if you had a logical rebuttal, would you need to introduce propositions that don't resemble the original resolution? You accepted my debate challenge, remember? I don't need to refute propositions that you introduce for the purpose of distracting attention from the original debate concept (which, again, you clearly understood when you acknowledged the original debate concept was, in essence, Pascal's Wager).

Sorry if I pissed you off, Con - but, if you really think about it, I didn't.....you pissed yourself off. It's not in my power to control your emotions..... I assure you, you have no power over mine. (I'll debate this one with you, if you like.?.?)

Thank you for the debate!

@ Liquidus - thank you for stating the obvious for me. I was foolish to debate a fool. Con wasn't debating my argument - he was defending his convoluted thinking.

It amazes me that so many atheists invest so much time and effort arguing against something they don't believe exists. It would be like me constantly debating against the existence of Bigfoot - why would I waste a second of my life doing that?? LOL
Posted by Snooch 5 years ago
Snooch
You don't believe in God so you can "gloat" about it. What do atheists gain? The same thing anyone else gains when discovering their "true" self. This may not apply to everyone, but have you ever felt "stupid" for believing in something you knew wasn't true? For example...a false friendship, bad relationship or adorning a costume to "play pretend." Is it right to lie to yourself if you don't believe? Would that not cause mental distress in the long run?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Well you got me Liq, you got me good.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Can't tell if serious. POE'S law perhaps ?
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
I was being sarcastic.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Correction: Islam exists, but the religion is a lie.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Mark1068IllegalcombatantTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did very well to expose the fallacy within being an Atheist.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Mark1068IllegalcombatantTied
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: Con had the better arguments, refuted the resolution strongly in the last round, and much less cogently before that. It troubles me that Con became suddenly articulate when Pro could no longer respond. But he didn't introduce new arguments in the final round, just explained himself better. So I don't feel like I can ignore his final round, nor penalize him for conduct. But I'm still uncomfortable.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Mark1068IllegalcombatantTied
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: Pascals Wager: debunked again.