The Instigator
Penguin44
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
SnowyOxygen
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Religion is like extra credit.

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 5 votes the winner is...
SnowyOxygen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 61034
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Penguin44

Pro

I believe that it is like extra credit. If you choose to believe in god and he turns out not to be real. Oh well. You still lived and you didn't really loose anything. If he does end up to be real, then you are welcomed into this thing or way of life that has you so interested in your religion.
SnowyOxygen

Con

I believe the term my friend is looking for is "Pascal's wager, if you don't believe in god then you are taking a risk.". Imagine you were an almighty god, and you were looking over a person. That person would then "believe" in another god only so he wouldn't go to hell. Not only is he insulting you, the true god by "believing" only to get out of going to hell, but he's also believing in another god which means he will go to hell anyway.
There are two problems here: with Pascal's wager you are not seriously believing in god, and how can you be sure that the god you choose to not take a risk with is the true god? If I was a god, then I would be less insulted by an honest atheist than by someone pretending to believe in me.
Debate Round No. 1
Penguin44

Pro

But that is the thing. You aren't pretending. When you do extra credit for math, and you pretend to do it, it is still wrong. You are doing the work and putting the effort. Just saying you believe in a religion doesn't mean you are in the religion. Just like just saying you did the extra credit, doesn't mean you did it or get it right.(Its two in the morning and I haven't slept so sorry if this doesn't make any sense once so ever.)
SnowyOxygen

Con

If someone chose to believe in a particular god only for the purpose of not taking any risks, I really doubt that he would be serious about his beliefs. It's like a prime minister saying what the public wants to hear instead of actually doing it. Here's another example: Imagine that there is a football club, and the only reason you joined it was to be with a girl that you liked. If the manager found that was the sole reason for your joining then you wouldn't last very long. Now imagine that there were an infinite number of clubs, and that you didn't know which one the girl was in. If you choose wrong, game over. If you choose correctly, still game over.
To conclude, I believe that Pascal's wager is riskier than being an atheist in more ways than one.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
Oh, I see that has already been mentioned, sorry.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
The topic of your debate is known as Pascale's Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager

:)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
Penguin44SnowyOxygenTied
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: Interesting conversation, not really a debate, but debate goes to Con. .
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
Penguin44SnowyOxygenTied
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: Con completely disproved Pascal's wager.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Penguin44SnowyOxygenTied
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 did not really compare extra to religion correctly; that was his job; you can do extra-credit and do it correctly, and con showed you cannot win Pascal's Wager so therefore it is completely different from religion.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Penguin44SnowyOxygenTied
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: I find Con's arguments to be very circumstantial and Con is trying to assert what others think in certain situations.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
Penguin44SnowyOxygenTied
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: I believe that Con made a better case in this debate. More logical and brings up some interesting points.