Convert Me

In the OP: "were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian's sun or Moses' Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply." So this is an "even if there is a god, which religion do I pick?" argument. Furthermore from the OP: "The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion (No Buddhism because that is not a real religion trollolol). I'd prefer one of the abrahamic religions because the audience will appreciate it more. But if you think you have an airtight case for hinduism, then go for it." In other words, you have to show that a particular religion is reasonable. You have only presented arguments that could be used to justify ANY crazy belief, including non-religious ones. It seems you still somehow misunderstood. Since we have many rounds, I invite you to present arguments in favor of actual Christianity instead of just random idea #109152. Regardless, even if you think it is really problematic for me to compare christianity against all the other religions, I can still compare a christian world to all of the infinitely many possible atheist worlds. He only wants us to consider narrow, traditional atheism. Well what about crazy stupid made up atheism? What about the worlds where there is no god but there's still an afterlife? What if we're all in the matrix? So even if he thinks I can't compare religions to Christianity, I can still compare it to an infinite amount of non-religious non-theistic nonsense. === Tragedy of Observational Debate === 1) Con doesn't want me to play different religions, or random ideas, off of Christianity. He thinks this must be narrow, traditional atheism versus Christianity. Well, I can use all the other cards in the deck if he doesn't even try to differentiate Christianity. "What's the best flavor of icecream?" "Mango" "Why?" "Because if you had a choice between eating Mango Icecream and rotten meat, which would you choose?" He says I should debate the merits of Christianity, which I am. I'm claiming that so far, Christianity has no special merits over other crazy theories. 2) Con concludes that I needed to set up the resolution to explicitly say that CON BOP is to prove Christianity is the one true religion. Well it basically says that in the Marquis' quote. But also, if Christianity is just one option among many, why would I accept it? The resolution asks him to get a "reasonable" person to accept Christianity. All Pascal's wager proves (at best) is that I should pick >> A << crazy thing to follow just in case. ==Arguments from Con Worth Dropping== A) He says that I only listed one Atheist option, and presented 6 theistic options. If he had read them in detail, he'd see that the first three are religious, the second last is non-religious theistic, and the other three are atheistic. You can still have an afterlife even if there's no god...... B) He says he thought the resolution was Atheism vs Theism of choice. Well, its kind of not. I didn't even state my philosophy in the OP. Hell, I could be hindu and he might not even know it. I could be totally indifferent or confused about all religions. The default position of PRO is not atheism (not believing in a god). The bare minimum I have to do is show that I should still be undecided about religion. Con case) Yes it is jibberish, but it is a possible Atheist world where I can do whatever I want and still go to heaven so long as I'm not Christian. Its an equally good theory as Christianity, except its a lot more fun to believe in, so I should choose Siebenism first. ===Arguments from Con Worth Keeping=== C) 1) He says that people who take risks with negative expected value are irrational. Depending on what their utility function is (subjective), this may not be the case. Even if I believe there is a 50% chance of there being a god, I can still guarantee 100% that I will get to do all this other stuff. So if I'm really set on "other stuff", and am willing to take the risk, its perfectly rational under this value system. Furthermore, risk taking can be an end in itself. See like, everyone who goes to Vegas. I'll extend this argument. Most people wouldn't take certain risks even when the expected value is positive. For example, if there's a game with 1/100000 odds, and it costs $100,000 to play, but you win 10^99 dollars, you're probably not going to throw away your life savings a couple times because the small chance of uber payout isn't worth it. 2) Pro thinks Christianity is more reasonable because it minimizes harms. To correct him, it is more reasonable IF you want to minimize AVERAGE harms. This is a value judgement, not a reasonable argument. == Conclusion == What I'm looking for in a reasonable argument is actual logical or empirical proof. For example, I believe in quantum mechanics. Not because my knowledge will ever be useful, but because its reasonable. Pro hasn't done anything to differentiate Christianity from any other crazy theory, religious or not. Since crazy theories cancel out, I don't have to believe in any of them (since there are infinitely many possible worlds where reasonable agnostic people to go heaven). And I especially shouldn't pay any special attention to Christianity.