Is This life what you think it is? Hell if you see life wrong maybe the place you end up.

|| Clarification || While the resolution is seemingly non-sensical (poor grammar), I'd like to establish the case which I have agreed to debate my opponent on as discussed via PM: That it is better to live righteously by God's word and assume that Hell exists, rather than assume it doesn't only to wind up there and suffer. I have agreed to argue the CON position agaist this resolution (which is similar to the idea of Pascal's Wager). REBUTTAL: || The Existance of Hell || Pro notes that there is no physical proof that Hell exists. Because he has offered no proof or even a substantial argument defending its existence, we cannot assume that it does. At best, we can say it 'maybe' exists for the purpose of this debate. || God's Love || Pro proposes that all the love we feel - romantic or otherwise - is only possible through God's existance. Once again, he provides no proof for these claims, therefore we have no reason to accept his ideology. || Science & Love || Actually, almost every emotion we feel can be explained via brain cells (neurons and the like) and their reactions + our physical and chemical make-up in general. This is proven given the fact that science now provides medicine and medication to either tame or stimulate emotions (i.e. Xanax or other mood stabalizers). While I'm no physicist and do not wish to go in depth about our brain function, the fact remains that there is more proof that science (biology) and not God is responsible for the love (or any emotion) that we feel. Assuming you agree that God is responsible for our biological make-up, again, at best this point can only result in a stalemate, or the notion that MAYBE God is responsible for the love that we feel. || Jesus & Sin || Not only is there no proof that Jesus was a holy figure, but history now speculates the very nature of his existance. Thus, the points about "spitting in Jesus' face" are irrelevant. || Jesus & Santa Clause || My opponent has equated believing in Jesus and the Devil to believing in Santa Clause. Now because we accept that the story of Santa Clause is a fictional one we teach our children for their benefit (enjoyment), we must accept that Pro has merely made the point that the story of Jesus and the Devil is just a fable tought to people that is for their supposed benefit. While the intentions may be good, the reality is false. || My Case || Given Pro's evidence (or lack thereof), at best we can conclude that MAYBE there is a God/Jesus and MAYBE there is a Hell. This leaves us with a 50/50 chance based on the little proof or arguments Pro listed in his favor. However, considering my points that science can and has explained a lot of the questions or mysteries of the world (or at least what we have discussed in this debate: one's emotions), you should consider my reasoning that God probably does not exist, making the odds more in my favor. However, even if we establish the presence of a 50/50 scenario, I stand in affirmation of the CON position -- that it's better to not believe that Hell exists rather than live in fear of such a place. 1. Pro is assuming that there are only 2 options -- The existence of God or the non-existance of God. This is flawed, of course, given the fact that there are COUNTLESS religions in the world in addition to Christianity. Consider Islam, for instance, or even polytheistic religions such as Paganism. To assume that his religion or his idea of Hell is the only possible one that can exist is non-sensical and certainly not supported via his own arguments. Assuming that there are 1,000 versions of religion/God/Hell/the afterlife (and that's a significantly low number), the odds of Pro being correct are only 1/1,000... and that's being generous. Thus, logically we should assume that his presumption is wrong, and therefore it wouldn't be of sound reason to in fact agree with his depiction of God and Hell. 2. Suppose that the Christian God does not exist, but another god does and we deny his existence. Being blasphemous is worse than not believing, thus it would be better for us to not believe in any god rather than assert one's superiroity or imminent reign over another (when we have only faith to go by). 3. Following God's law often inhibits us from living our lives the way we'd like. For instance, it's considered sinful to engage in premarital sex. However, most of us believe that if we are safe and mature with our decisions, then our sex lives should be our business. Choosing to ignore our own human desires out of fear is no way to make the most of our lives here on earth. We must conclude that if no god exists, it's better to give our lives meaning and define our own existence, i.e. live our lives to the fullest or as best we possibly can based on our own moral beliefs. If we're wrong and God DOES in fact exist, the idea that he is all forgiving and merciful should mean that He would be understanding of our sin and our skepticism, as it is only human nature to seek truth and fulfillment. 4. If God doesn't exist, we will have wasted a lot of time (going to church, praying, etc.), money (tithings, religious ceremonies, etc.), livelihoods (consider those that choose the priesthood) and even lives (think about all of the holy wars). It almost seems as if believing in God and Hell means being willing to sacrifice our lives here on earth. The only thing is, we have proof that earth and humanity exists. We don't have PROOF (not based on faith) that God/Hell exists. Again, because of this, God - if one exists as they say he does - should understand our predicament. 5. God is supposed to only reward and save true believers. If one doesn't believe for any reason, to pretend that we believe or to force ourselves to believe would not indicate valid submission to the idea of God and Hell. Therefore what we believe is somewhat out of our hands. We don't have absolute control of our faith. Furthermore, we only believe what we do because that is what we are tought as young children. Surely God wouldn't punish those who were never given the opportunity to believe in Him based on the circumstances to which they were born. 6. A just god judges people for who they are, not for what their minds tell them is likely to be true or not. Therefore a just god would still save atheists if they were good people. Is it really likely that non-believers are sent to hell, only because their great minds didn't find any evidence of the Christian god? In that case the word "just" is not applieable to god, and such a god is not even worth worshipping. To worship such a god would be like worshiping your worst enemy because you were afraid of his revenge if you didn't submit to his power [1]. || Conclusion || I'll stop here for now, curious to see as what my opponent proposes next. If he attempts any type of intelligent rebuttal, I will continue debunking the resolution at hand. Good luck. Source: [1] http://www.update.uu.se...