GodSands Should Cease Discussing Religion on DDO for His Own Good

Con still does not get the point of the entire argument. That fact that Godsands believes atheists will go to Hell is pivotal to the debate. She has at least attempted a counterargument this time, but it rests on two points that are completely untenable. The first is that GodSands will make present decisions based on possible future beliefs. If he is behaving rationally (and this debate is about what he would do if he were behaving rationally) he would certainly not do this. Consider if there were a pill that would make me believe that it is morally necessary to kill other humans and consume their flesh. Would I be inclined to take this pill? No, because I believe that it would cause me to believe something harmful. Obviously some people will see this as a problem for everyone who professes to be open-minded. Why do I listen to socialist arguments if I believe that it would be a net loss for me to believe in socialism? The reason for this requires us to distinguish between the possibility that one could be convinced and the possibility that one's ideas could be false, a distinction that Con has systematically overlooked. I believe it is possible both that my beliefs could be wrong and that I could be convinced otherwise, and that my being convinced that my beliefs are wrong is very like to result from (and only from) sufficient proof that they are wrong. It is therefore a benefit to me to debate a socialist: if he is right I may be convinced otherwise, which is a gain because I have acknowledged the possibility that I am in error. While it is certainly true that GodSands could lose his faith, as I will discuss later, he believes that there is no possibility that his beliefs are in error. That is NOT the same as believing that it is possible that he could be convinced of the falsehood of his beliefs. In spite of whatever we would like to think, our beliefs are not predicated entirely on their actual truth. At this present time, it is reasonable to believe that GodSands beliefs or could rationally determine the following 1) Those who do not believe in Christianity suffer an infinite penalty (Hell) 2) Christianity is certainly true 3) It is possible that I could come to not believe in Christianity 4) It is possible that I could suffer an infinite penalty If there is an infinite penalty, he MUST take every possible action to avoid it. Finite gains and benefits are irrelevant. It should be extremely obvious from this that GodSands possible future belief in atheism should NOT influence his present actions. What Con advocates is tantamount to arguing that GodSands believes that Christianity will cease to be true of he stops believing in it. Clearly the truth of a religious doctrine is not based on one person's belief in it. The possible future atheist GodSands might be shocked that his past religious self was influenced by a fear of Hell, but that does not influence the decision making process of the current GodSands. Now, I have already explained why debating on DDO increases the odds of GodSands facing unlimited punishment. His continual exposure to well explained atheist arguments increases his odds of being convinced. There are few other environments as hostile to GodSands immortal soul as DDO. Con argues that GodSands is to convicted to lose his faith, but this argument does not rest on reasonable evidence. Human beings are capable of being convinced of opposing viewpoints. It is neither logically nor physically impossible that Godsands could become an atheist. As long as there is a nonzero chance that this could happen, GodSands has to avoid it in every way possible in order to behave rationally. Any probabilistic arguments by Con fail automatically because Hell is an infinite penalty. All of Con's arguments have been based on finite gains. Finite gains me nothing if a nonzero increase in the probability of an infinitely negative outcome occur as a result. All my opponent's proposed benefits are insufficient because they are not infinite gains. The mere possibility of an infinite loss outweighs all of them infinitely. I'm not going to keep reiterating the arguments I've made again and again. For two rounds Con has made arguments that have nothing to do with the debate. Silly things like DDO making you a better person have no importance in matters of infinite stakes. She's remade arguments that I already demonstrated are logically impossible (such as the potential gain GodSands could gain by converting others, which is finite because his ascent to Heaven is already assured) without addressing my arguments are all. There is an increased potential for infinite loss, and rational people to do risk infinite loss ever. That in itself is the end of any possible argument.