The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
msaka33
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Pascal's Wager is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

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 4 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 30100
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

KingDebater

Pro

I'm going to be arguing that Pascal's Wager is not a good argument.

I don't think that it is a good argument because it's just as likely that there's a God that will punish Christians or reward non-believers.

I'd like to see Con's viewpoint on this.
msaka33

Con

As a Christian, I believe what it means is that you have an incentive to want to believe in a deity rather than take the chance of going to hell by not believing, but I would never use this as a way of convincing someone that God exists, if a theist only believes in God based on Pascal's Wager, than he/she doesn't truly believe in God by faith but by fear.

"Its just as likely that there's a God that will punish Christians or reward non-believers."

But that's an oxymoron, why would a God reward an atheist if the atheist (especially an anti-theist) did nothing in his/her life but bash the idea of God? As for the first part of your statement, I guess you would have to have faith in your God and believe, because if you look at those odds, a Christian would have a better chance of getting into heaven than an atheist at that point.

If an atheist were to say to me if I said that to him/her, they would probably say "Well what if a different religion's God is real, then you would go to hell", true true but than you would also as well, the whole statement is based on luck and chance, which is something that a true Christian doesn't base his/her faith on
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

A God who'd award atheists is not an oxymoron. Maybe it's part of a test this hypothetical gives. An oxymoron is something like a square circle, for example.

Also, surely a God would not approve of this kind of thinking, you know 'I believe in God just in case'.

I'm sorry for my short entry for this round, but I don't feel there is much to reply to.

If there's anything from your round 2 that I disagree with, I'll put it in the comments section.

Vote for Pro.
msaka33

Con

A God who would let an atheist into heaven for bashing Him IS an oxymoron, and you are right a God wouldn't, that's why I said a true Christian doesn't believe by that standard, a person who believes by that standard would be an agnostic

Vote for Con
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pro points out that PW doesn't work. Unless you already believe in god---for reasons other than PW---you can't believe that god will prefer believers and punish nonbelievers.

Con never refuted this. Con had two opportunities to argue, but didn't do so. Instead of arguing, Con simply made the undefended claim that it would be oxymoronic to believe---as many Christians do---in a god who didn't fit Pascal's template. Unitarian/Universalism is not oxymoronic. Judaism is not oxymoronic. Belief in Thor is not oxymoronic.

Con never tried to prove his case.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Agnostic is as bogus a word as atheist, both completely unecessary traps. There is no word for a non astrologer or non alchemist. Just because the bible is infecting millions of people worldwide, means nothing :)

21st Century Intellectual Honesty simply says "I don't know everything, and no god is an even 50/50 bet. Its a statistical improbability the reason for all the stars and galaxies is zeus, horus, or in anyway concerned with your sex life. Zeus, is a statistical improbability, divine sex monitors ar a statistical improbability, horus and the long list of statistical improbabilities is endless"

I dont need to know every answer in the universe or how it all started to know that the reason for everything had an old man buld an ark instead of just making each creature again after his temper tantrum flood.

Big kids are Not young enough to know everything. Just because I cant expalin why the laws of physics are so precise, doesnt automatically mean jesus is my savior, or that the reason for everything is concerned with my sex life :)

Only religious minded clowns or otherwise ignorant bigots deny equal human rights in 2013 :)

Believe whatever religious lunacy or superstition you want, just treat it more like ur genitalia and keep it to yourself, dont whip it out in public, dont use it for show and tell or any other time at school, and dont shove it down kids throats :)

If you do treat your lunacy and superstitious "Elvis is alive" or "the reason for the sub atomic world is concerned with my sex life" beliefs private, you will silence the torment you suffer from us pesky thinkin' folk, with all our fancy evidence and stuff :).

Give it a try, convince the christian nation, to stop infesting our government, poisoning our schools, denying human rights, hurting people and telling lies and see how quiet it gets :)
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
An oxymoron is a concept that is self-contradictory. [1]

Just because something may seem odd, it doesn't mean that it's improbable or less probable than something that doesn't seem as odd. I'd say that the two things are equally as probable.

Therefore, Pascal's Wager is failed.

Vote for Pro.
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
Well we were talking about atheists, which aren't necessarily anti-theists. Even so, it wouldn't be an oxymoron, it would be odd. But who are we to judge the Pro-Anti-Theist God?
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
Well we were talking about atheists, which aren't necessarily anti-theists. Even so, it wouldn't be an oxymoron, it would be odd. But who are we to judge the Pro-Anti-Theist God?
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
No, I'm not Jarhyn, I just liked the titles he gave to two of his debates.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Are you Jarhyn?

Plus, I don't know any modern Theologians who use Pascal's Wager. Not because it's a bad argument, necessarily (when properly understood), but there seem to be better arguments to use.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
KingDebatermsaka33Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: KingDebator's arguments are clearly correct, and msaka is clearly engaging in an argument from incredulity and assertion fallacy that god's intent would require his worship. It's far more reasonable to think that a god would create intelligent and rational people and then deny them proof of his existence particularly to encourage them to figure out how to be good on their own and let them do so, and reward those who figure it out and are "good" without needing either stick or carrot. Thus believing in gods "just in case" could very well result in LOSING the wager, even if that god exists. PRO identified this possibility implicitly, and msaka just disregarded it. Even so, however, I would have liked to see pro give such an example however it is not necessary; msaka took the absolute position that gods could only possibly be interested in rewarding believers, and thus bore the burden of proof on that absolute position.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
KingDebatermsaka33Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments weren't much. But Pro did point out that someone who 'believes in god just in case' would quite possibly be disapproved of--and Con didn't refute that.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
KingDebatermsaka33Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
KingDebatermsaka33Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: bad grammar with "is failed" in the title