Theism is fundamentally a danger to human society.

Again, thank you for issuing this challenge.I did actually present an argument. My argument was that by believing in God, it causes many people to live better lives than if they didn't believe in atheists which, then, would also cause them to be better citizens. Therefore Theism is not a fundamental danger to society but can actually help society.Regarding Pro's argument that morality is explained by Evolution and not by Theism, again, if it were simple "herd mentality" then the stronger impulse would always win out, but it doesn't. Many people risk their own lives to save the lives of others, people they know and even strangers. If our morality were governed by Evolution, then no one would inconvenience themselves to feed a starving person or give their lives to save someone else. In fact, Evolution would seem to indicate that we should have sex with as many people as we can to keep the species going, yet the Bible calls adultery a sin. We're only supposed to marry one person, which would go against evolutionary instinct. The Bible, and other religious texts, teach a morality which goes against human nature, such as having to abstain from sin rather than giving in to human instinct and just living however you want. Theism accounts for many people living better lives than they would, otherwise.Now for Pro's contentions:C1:While being less popular does not make you wrong, necessarily, it does show that there are reasons to believe in something. If no one ever had a reason to believe in anything then they wouldn't believe in it. In fact, theologians and philosophers have been making arguments regarding the existence of God since before Jesus walked the Earth. In fact, in the book of Acts, Paul uses intellectual arguments to support the existence of God. He doesn't just use arguments from the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17). Atheists may not be wrong just because they are in the minority, but all throughout time people have made reasoned, logical justifications for their belief in God.C2:First, I want to clear a misunderstand. I did not make the claim that Evolution is not true, I was saying his claim that Christian morality arose through Evolution was not necessarily true. After re-reading my argument, I can see how he would have misunderstood. My beliefs on Evolution are not on trial here, but even if Evolution can account for some sense of morality, it cannot account for all morality that Christian faith teaches, as I have already shown.Second, yes, God would have to be real for him to want anything, but a God does not have to be real for me to believe in him. After all, many religious texts have been written by many conflicting versions of God or gods. So obviously not everyone is correct, but even the ones who worship false gods are worshiping gods that are not real, yet still following that "god's" morality. Clearly, a god does not have to be true for those who have faith in him to follow his teachings, whether teachings from a real god or teachings from someone claiming to have heard from a god who is not there.And again, I choose to live my life according to the Bible because I believe in the Christian God. If morality were simply left up to Evolution, I would have no choice but to act upon my "evolutionary" instinct.I did, in fact, read Pro's argument. If you're going to argue morality from Evolution, you can't just say "morality is complicated because humans are." Pro did not show how morality from Evolution can be more complicated than self-preservation morality aside from simply stating it and claiming it to be true. Look like C.S. Lewis wasn't wrong, and yes, he was a great author.C3:I have already shown how atheism is not a reasonable position. If we can show that God exists (as we can), all it takes it one evidence to prove it, as opposed to atheism in which you can't prove it, because you can't prove something doesn't exist unless you find something that completely contradicts it. Atheism is the "disbelief in God," so it makes no sense to say that atheists leave the possibility open they just don't believe it's worth pursuing. Some notable atheists were: One might wonder if Pro is really just agnostic with a poorly arranged data set.As for pro's axioms:I didn't say that whatever humans have a concept of must be true, I said that considering Pro's own axiom "a concept of these terms can only exist within a universal standard...must be based on universal terms of human perception," we can conclude that God exists because there is a universal standard by which to judge if one exists. For example, humans live and die. We are contingent beings because we have a beginning and we have an end. We cannot survive or exist on our own. There must be a Being that exists independent of itself (a Necessary Being) one that is not contingent on anything for its survival, one that has no beginning or no end for only a being greater than us and apart from us can create our race of beings, and the universe (which also has a beginning and end and must have a creator outside of itself, which is God.Also, Pro did not respond to the scientific belief in alternate dimensions, or even parallel universes, which cannot be empirically tested but some scientists believe are there. [1]As for his fourth axiom, I was simply addressing his argument that there can be no deviation from universally accepted terms in assessing the grounds for knowledge. It was once universally accepted that the sun revolved around the Earth but Copernicus and Galileo, through experimentation, proved them wrong.As for his fifth axiom, I have already shown why terms or definition of "truth" or "fact" can exist which allows for the existence of God. People throughout history have been using their own human experiences to show how a God is necessary. I was not saying that which cannot be proven false must be assumed true. But that which cannot be proven false should not automatically be assumed false.I stand by my argument, that Pro has not shown how Theism is a fundamental danger to society (or a danger at all). In fact, he doesn't even argue that God doesn't exist, merely that we can't know he exists, there's no way to prove it, so we shouldn't even try. But what if God does exist? If humanity is on a quest for knowledge and we dismiss God because we can't (at least yet) prove one exists, would this not be a fundamental danger to human society? We have been barking up the wrong galactic tree for thousands of years and will continue to do so for thousands more. Pro insinuates that believing wrong things simply because you can't prove the right ones is a fundamental danger to society. I reject this conclusion.Now for his leftovers:1. Again, Pro would say we should all agree on truth, even if these truths are actually false. Many people of many different faiths can agree with each other and do good in this community (for example, after a catastrophe the entire nation will band together to help those in need regardless of faith background).2. Genuine Christians do not treat non-believers any worse than believers. We are all created by God, in His image, and so no one is any less valuable than anyone else.3. This is not the only way in which ideas become widely held. Otherwise religions would not span the entire globe.According to Pro's opening argument, he wasn't just trying to establish that Theism is a threat to society, but a fundamental threat to society. I have adequately shown that it is not. Pro would have us believe that all should believe the same thing, even if that thing is false, simply because we cannot prove the "truth" is correct. This seems much more of a threat to me. Many people are better people after finding "religion." In many ways, Theism is actually a friend to society, not an enemy.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;