Athiests have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

In order to negate the resolution, all I need to do show is that Pro has not been able to prove that atheists have nothing to gain and/or everything to lose. There are many assertions made by Pro in order to try and get to this conclusion about atheists have nothing to gain and everything to lose, but as far as I can see they are just that assertions, unsupported, unsubstantiated assertions. 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. " How does Pro know that in the event of not believing in the proposition that God exists that an atheist if wrong loses everything for eternity ? Assertion number 2) Pro says about theists "Theists claim to believe God does exist. If they are right, they gain everything. .. .for eternity. " On what basis does Pro claim that a theist gains everything if they believe in the proposition that God exists ? Alot of religions reject this claim, for example in some sects of christianity "faith" in christ is the only way to heaven, according to some, you can believe that God exists all day long, but as long as you don't have "faith" in christ your hellbound. Clearly if this vision of the after life is correct, then the claim that a person gains everything if God exists and is a theist is false. As too the claim by some muslims that after hearing the claim that the Quran is the holy word of God and if you reject this claim guess what. .. .. .. .. .. your hellbound. Assertion number 3) If there is no God, they lose nothing - not even the atheist vs. theist debate. The theist will never even suffer that they were wrong. Once again, if some form of christianity or islam or any number of faith based claims is correct then just being a theist with certain or lack of certain beliefs can result in a great loss. At the core of Pros argument is this concept, a concept about practicality and pragmatism, not so much about truth but about placing your bets so to speak. Its not a unique argument and the most famous of this kind of argument is that of Pascal's Wager. .. "Pascal's Wager, also known as Pascal's Gambit, is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because one living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. " [1] There are many counters to pascals wager, so I will only quickly bring up two. 1) Pascal was working of the foundation by God he really meant the christian God as he saw the christian God. Trouble is this argument can be used for the Islamic God or any God. Best to believe in the Islamic God eh ? After all if your wrong you lose nothing, if your right. .. .. .. .. paradise and virgins perhaps ? 2) There are numerous claims about God, even in the same religions there are different claims made about God. As a matter of shear probability you should assume that your beliefs about God are wrong in some respect. If the hard atheist is going to get very bad results by having wrong beliefs about God, in this case about Gods non existence how much more so those who do believe in God yet also have wrong beliefs about God ? How about those who even commit evils and or inflict sufferings in the name of God ? who is the one who is really in danger here ? ""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You pay a tenth of[q]mint, dill, and cumin,[r]yet you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice,mercy, and faith. These things should have been done without neglecting the others.24Blind guides! You strain out a gnat, yet gulp down a camel! " [2] Sources [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager(Couldn't get link to show properly, see heading Things named after Blaise Pascal, at the bottom of this heading is the link on pascal's wager. [2]. http://www.biblegateway.com...