Theism is fundamentally a danger to human society.

Thank for for your quick response! I apologize for not putting my rebuttal at the fore, but I can assure you it is in there. You will notice it right under C2: "In Con's opening argument, he suggests..." I also apologize for not paraphrasing you directly, as that does always make it easier to notice, but you didn't seem to present any clear theses or logical progression in your opening statement - so I approached it with some vagueness. This time I will rebut first. "Theism does a lot of good in peoples' lives and leads them to good ..." etcThis is exactly what I hoped to address under my morality condition. The "call" Con mentions is no different than that established within all humans, religious and secular, as well as many other species. It is the call of genetic imperative, and as such can not be credited to religious upbringing or training. I must refer back to my previous argument, and remind you that morality, peaceability and brotherly love have no causal relationship with theism. As for your refutation of my C1:"This is clearly false, especially since atheists are in the minority."You present a fallacious rebuttal, which seems a shame as it is also your only citation published since Elvis Presley's first record. In fact, you yourself demonstrate the fallacious nature of this argument under your response to my C3, where you invoke the factually driven minority of 15th century heliocentrists (big props to my boy Copernicus). Clearly being less popular does not make you wrong. By the rules of this debate you must restate your argument in a way free of fallacy or be forced to abandon it - accepting the premise that there is no reasonable justification to believe in god. On to C2. "A God does not have to be real for believers to live in the way that God wants them to." This is obviously fallacious, as god would in fact have to be real for it/him to want anything. Following that, Con states: "Whether the Christian God exists or not is irrelevant to the way I choose to live my life." This is in fact exactly what I am arguing. You would still be you, just as good or bad as you are now, whether or not you believed in the great space ghost. After that Con suggests that evolution is not necessarily true, in direct opposition to an absolutely mind blowing amount of observational, experimental data. [2] "While the argument from nature could be used to show why I wouldn't murder someone, it cannot be used to show why I would treat others better than myself." Here Con demonstrates that he may not have read my argument very carefully at all. I will quote myself: "This covariance equation... demonstrates effectively how altruism developed as an evolutionary trait...In short, brotherly love and general morality developed because they advance a species' ability to propagate their genes.It's a bit more complex than 'I won't attack you because you might attack me,' but – of course – so are we." Looks like C.S. Lewis was wrong, but that's okay, he was still a great author. Under C3, Con introduces the idea that atheism constitutes an absolutist belief system. "While we may not be able to prove a God exists empirically, beyond the shadow of a doubt, neither can we prove atheism..." etc In fact, atheism is the most reasonable position of all. Here's why: atheism posits that it doesn't make sense to hold anything as fact which cannot be demonstrated experimentally or observationally. This is an idea which Con himself seems poised to agree with in his refutation of my C3! He may himself be a nascent atheist with a poorly arranged data set. Unfortunately, Con uses another fallacy a few times in his refutation of my C3. To him, its the "tea in china" fallacy. To the rest of us, that's an onus probandi or an argument from ignorance.[3]As per the rules, Con must restate or abandon all arguments involving that fallacy. To wit, "In order to say there is no tea in China... (that whole pgh)." To clarify, atheists do not believe that it is impossible that god exists; atheists believe that it is irrelevant. On to the meat of my argument: Con agrees with my first axiom. Under Con's refutation of my second axiom, he implies that anything which humans have a concept of must be true. I'm not even going to bother explaining why this is fallacious. I would ask that he restate or abandon that argument. Con also implies that atom structure and dark matter are untestable hypotheses, which is simply false. [4] Under Con's refutation of my third axiom, he suggests that Copernicus and Galileo were not interested in demonstrating their claims experimentally. In fact, experimental, empirical data is what separated them from the Papal geocentric astronomy. Under Con's refutation of my fourth axiom, he employs another fallacy - one which I specifically went out of my way to strike from this debate early on. This is the implied creator argument which I demonstrated to be a nonsequitur. I would ask that he restate or abandon that refutation. Under Con's refutation of my fifth axiom, he implies that things which cannot be proven false must be assumed true. This is again the onus probandi. Restate or abandon. Con has claimed my sixth axiom to be a non sequitur. He failed to establish why that might be, however, claiming simply "believing in a God ... does not disrupt the very basis of all terms of truth, and I don't believe you've shown how it can. Someone's belief in God, in most cases, makes them a better person, not a worse person." My axioms themselves (combined with my C1 and C2) demonstrate this quite elegantly (hurm hurm), so I would ask simply that you review them. As for Con's refutation of my seventh axiom, I would recommend that he reread my C2, on morality. Now to wrap up my leftovers. 1. The necessary conditions for cooperation: class equivalence, moral and logical equivalence. For cooperative morality to function, people must see themselves as being morally and logically equivalent. Non equivalence has been at the root or justification of every war. Ever. In order to achieve equivalence, we must all hold the same understanding of what establishes truths, as in my third axiom. 2. The dangers of subjective, egocentric belief – the threat of the “chosen.” If any group establishes themselves to hold truths or inherent advantages over other groups, this forms a non equivalence. Theism inculcates a sense of being "chosen" in believers, which acts in this way exactly. 3. How do ideas become widely held? The function of the scientific establishment and global scientific cooperation. Science is a wonderful tool! The scientific community is based around a set of guiding principles established in this colorful graphic: http://www.inventioninfo.info... That methodology has combined with modern technology to birth the modern scientific community. People within that community are devoted to testing each others ideas over and over again in order to establish how likely it is that they are true! In experimental science, no idea is considered which cannot be tested experimentally to yield empirical results. The global scientific community has forged bonds which can hold even when their nations are at war! This is because the scientific method is a belief system that functions within the bounds of observational data, and forms a common class between everyone that shares it. That's everyone! Because we all have senses that we can use to experience the world. In summation, my axioms still stand. Empiricism is the only reasonable perspective, and theism is a threat to that perspective, and, therefore, to cooperation and morality between peoples. Duly, theism is inherently a threat to society. notes in comment again, sorry. Important! When voting - please respect the rules set out in this debate! Any fallacious argument must be disregarded. As I do not have the privilege of landing the last blow, I will try to point out any fallacies that may be in Con's closing statement.