Athiests have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

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.