Convert Me

==Resolution== "The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion" The only debatable resolution then is "Resolved: It is reasonable for one to accept [insert theistic religion here]". I offer Christianity, and thus propose that for my opponent, it would be reasonable to accept Christ. ==Observations== 1) Because of my opponents willingness to debate any theistic religion, he must assume a stance of non-religion (atheism). 2) Also, it would be disingenuous to propose a debate in which one desires reason for conversion from atheism to a particular religion and then merely negates that religion by comparing it with other religions. For example, I say that he should worship Christ and he says "But in Islam that is heresy" or I say there is a Hell and he says "not in Sikhism". Etc. I'm serious abut this, if my opponent merely clashes Christianity with other religious views he side steps the open invitation he began the debate with and limits the pro world. If he wanted a debate between basic classical theism (the only option left when all religions must compete) and atheism, he should have said so at the onset. Instead he must assume two competing worlds- a Pro world and a Con world. In the Pro world Christianity is assumed correct without due consideration of other religious views. In the Con, Atheism is assumed correct. ==Pro Case== 1) Pascal's Wager I'm from Las Vegas, and am no stranger to gambling. I always warn my visitors that Las Vegas has not been able to build such large hotels and such impressive sights because tourists win in the casinos. I usually say they should save their money, because the odds aren't in their favor. House wins. Gambling involves mathematics, the consideration of chance, and the taking of risk in a particular direction. The reasonable gambler (and often the successful one) considers the risks and benefits he takes on each of his options, then chooses the option with the greatest benefits, and fewest risks. I intend to argue that my opponent, who is considering religion as opposed to atheism, go all in with Christianity, since it is the safest bet. Consider the two competing scenarios: 1- Christianity is wrong, there is no Heaven or Hell. 2- Christianity is correct, there is a Heaven and Hell, and acceptance of Christ is necessary to avoid the latter and enter the former. My opponent must reasonably consider his options before he places his bet. If he chooses to deny faith and remain atheist, this will have differing consequences should scenario 1 or 2 be correct. Consider a bet on: -Atheism in scenario 1:- My opponent lives his life free of religion. He has an average life, good times and bad, makes a few friends along the way, probably has some children, bounces some grandkids on his knee, and then dies. After he dies, nothing happens. Weighing the benefits and risks here are easy. My opponent lived an enjoyable life (+1), and died with no further consequence, whether positive or negative (+0). Atheism only has positive benefits if Scenario 1 turns out to be reality. Now lets compare this to: -Christianity in scenario 1:- My opponent lives his life with religion in it. He probably still has an average life, makes a few friends along the way (some of them in church), has a few kids (has them in the youth group), bounces some grandkids on his knee, and then dies. After he dies, nothing happens. Weighing the benefits and risks here are easy as well. My opponent lved an enjoyable life (+1), and died with no further consequence, whether positive or negative (+0). Christianity has only positive benefits if Scenario 1 turns out to reality. -Conclusion on Scenario 1- As my opponent considers his religious options, at this point he sees that neither Christianity nor Atheism has a reasonable lead on the other. He moves on to the second scenario to further consider which of the alternatives is the most reasonable gamble. Now lets consider... -Atheism in scenario 2:- My opponent lives his life without religion in it. Again he has a normal life. He dies, but this time there is serious consequence. His conscious rejection of Christianity results in eternal damnation to Hell, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Weighing the benefits and risks: My opponent lived and enjoyable life (+1). But his death resulted in an eternity of torment and suffering (->_1, minus greater than or equal to 1). -Christianity in scenario 2:- My opponent lives his life with religion in it. After living a normal life, he dies, and goes to paradisaical place for eternity. Weighing the benefits and risks: My opponent lived an enjoyable life (+1), and after dying he got to enjoy everlasting peace and happiness (+>_1, plus greater than or equal to 1). -Conclusion on Scenario 2- Here my opponent sees the difference between his options. In scenario 2, Atheism yields potentially endless harms, while Christianity yields equally endless benefits. --Placing the Bet-- The reasonable gambler would choose Christianity, because should Scenario 1 be correct, Christianity equals Atheism, but should Scenario 2 be correct, Christianity's benefits far outweigh Atheism's, and Atheism's harms far outweigh Christianity's. Christianity is the safer bet for the largest increase of benefits and the fewest incurred harms. Thus it is reasonable to convert to Christianity. a) The (+1) Life of Christianity Richard Dawkins has argued against Pascal's Wager (the above argument) by saying that religious life is horrible and results in a lifetime of harms. Besides this being bigoted and absurd, it is also false. Much evidence points to religious life benefiting the believer. Religious people enjoy good: Health http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com... Social Cohesion http://www.tulsaworld.com... Charitable Participation http://www.hoover.org... And a slew of other examples, http://www.psychwww.com... that prove this is a bigoted and ignorant thing to say. The PRO has not made the argument that the Atheistic life is in any way less fulfilling than a Christian life, and the CON is urged to make a counter argument without reducing the existence of friends and neighbors with stereotypes and ignorant platitudes. ===Conclusion=== The Pro has made a reasonable argument for conversion to Christianity. Because ultimate reality is unknowable to both an Atheist and a Christian, it is preferable to gamble on the side of Christianity as this maximizes benefits and reduces the risk of harms. Realizing how undeniably powerful this argument is, should my opponent wish to convert to Christianity at this time, I am available to help him do so. Please remember that, as a Christian, I am at risk of being tackled by an evangelism linebacker if I fail to meet my proselytizing quota. http://www.sermonspice.com...