Spreading atheism brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it.

I would like to apologize if I did not follow the rules accordingly. I would like to express that this house stands firm in believing that spreading atheism definitely brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it. Rebuttals against Con's main argument A1. Con argued that in a society which consists of Christians, crime rate would be lower than it is without due to the point that according to their religion, judgement would be made and fear prevents evil deeds since at the end of the day they will be entering hell or heaven based on their deeds on earth. The first point brought up by Con is highly ignorant thus making it incorrect and i would explain why. Con being the party that instigated the debate has laid the ground rules. (please refer to statements agreed no 2, round 1) With the statement kept in mind, Con has defeated his/her own argument and DID NOT follow his/her own rules as afterlife cannot be proposed and benefits of heaven and hell are invalid. On top of that, take a look mankind history and we can all see that some wars, disputes, early imperialism and other negative events are tied to religion. Malaysia, was once invaded by the Dutch and British empire during the Colonist-era and one of the reasons used was to spread religion. So much killing was involved for those who were trying defend and colonize the country. And do keep in mind that Malaysia was not the only country exploited during the Colonist-era. Have we forgotten that part of the reason certain countries are in tensed relations are also due to the religion? Suicide bombers? Hate crimes in the name of religion?Even with the fact that Con has breached his/her own rules which I agreed upon, Con's argument does not stand for itself and is of a weak one. If that is your idea of "low crime rates" Con, please rethink your argument. A2. Con suggested that since no one can prove Atheism is true or false, spreading it is a waste of time and resources. Con stated in his/her argument that Con totally agrees with researches to prove whether god exists. This statement is completely denied as same as the Con, I can argue that no one can prove the existence of god THUS making it a WASTE of time and resources to spread it. Your argument is highly opinionated and maybe even personal, causing it to be unfitting for it to stand by itself as a point. Again, Con's argument has defeated itself and has shown weakness. And to top things up, Con believes that if something cannot be proved yet it is a waste of time and resources. Ladies and Gentlemen, is spreading unproved fiction/fact a waste of time and resources? - Research made to prove inter-galactic life form. Movies, books, fictions, comics, etc about Aliens. No one has seem to completely prove the existence of Aliens yet the spread of the idea seems worldwide and so dominant. So is it a waste of time and resources to spread the idea of an outer life form? Doesn't seem like the trend and even I do not believe so. - Religion. Can you prove it? That's one of the ultimate questions and there is a reason why it is remained till this very day, A QUESTION. Then again, the world seems pretty hyped about the idea of religion and I have nothing against it but can u say that an unproven fact should not be spread because it is a waste of time and resources? Nope. Now, I would like to defend my own arguments and show that Con's rebuttals are invalid. B1. Con used Oxford Dictionaries to prove that since Atheism is not a fact, it cannot be a form of knowledge. While I could waste my time searching from another reliable source to argue, I choose not to as Con has done something IGNORANT AGAIN. Read carefully as to the FULL definition. - "the THEORETICAL or practical understanding of a subject" Never have I stated that Atheism is a complete fact and IT IS a THEORY. and according to the definition given by CON, a theoretical understanding of a subject CAN be a form of knowledge. B2. "The costs are too high for a theory which might or might not give benefit" Since i already proven that Atheism is in fact a form of knowledge, and i have rebutted and proven as to why fact/fiction spread is NOT a waste of time or resources (refer to rebuttals 2). Your argument just became invalid. B3. Con suggests that Atheism is not a form of knowledge therefore is unimportant to spread it. Again refer to B1, I have already shown that Atheism IS in fact a form of knowledge thus making your argument invalid. B4. It is not for Con to decide whether personalities are better left undefined and by doing so, Con is on the edge of breaching our constitutional rights. The right to voice out, choose and be who we want to be. The benefit I stated was the extra OPTION, to be who you choose to be. Cons argument is highly flawed and ignorant and in turn fail to prove his/her motion. Through disproving Con's points and rebuttals, Con's argument is flimsy and my motion will stand firm. Thank you.