Athiests have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Shifting GroundPro 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 IPAverb (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 chargePro 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 RemarksBecause 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 ConSources [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...