trying to spread aetheism/discourage theism is immoral

Note that my opponent is not arguing on the basis that any religions might be true. Any readers who feel that a religion might be true should try to discount that conviction in assessing the cases we have put forward in this debate, since no contention has been made here that any religion is true.Further, my opponent does not dispute the point that most religions are false.My opponent has not made a positive case that promoting atheism is immoral, other than the unwarranted asumption that theism "makes people happy".Epicureanism makes people happy. That is not sufficient to establish that arguing against it is immoral."society that is grounded in religion, even if it inhibits technological advancement to some degree, will still inspire personal emotional happiness much more then one grounded in atheism."Without adequate technological advancement, a state in today's world leaves itself at the mercy of the more powerful nations. Invasion a probability. A losing war a distinct possibility. The possibility of a nuclear attack it cannot defend itself from. Its citizens would not then be very happy.Note that my opponent only asserts that religion would instill more personal happiness amongst the citizens of this potentially war-ravaged state."Your third point, that a person that holds religion would not like to be patronized in that way, is nothing but an opinion. Personally, I would much rather be under the impression that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in me and I will live forever then believe life is all but meaningless, so I feel I have a moral duty to ensure that others don't break away from religion."I'm not going to trouble to dispute that my opponents promotion of theism is morally justified, since that is not the resolution. Be aware that A's promotion of theism and B's promotion of atheism can both be morally justified. I outlined moral reasoning for the promotion of atheism. I personally would not like to be patronized, therefore I cannot treat others in this way. Some may preferred to be patronized, but I cannot in all good conscience do so. Therefore, it is far from immoral, but the right action for me to promote atheism. Truth is a moral issueMy opponent argues that truth is not a moral issue. If truth were not a moral issue, why is lying widely seen as immoral? A system of morals can be consequentalist or deontological. Consequentialism focuses on practical outcomes. Under a consequentalist system, truth is a virtue because error encourages a false response to the environment, which may be dangerous. If I have an accurate picture of the busy road in front of me and where the cars are, I am less likely to get run over. If I see some other road than the one I am crossing, with cars in positions that the actual cars are not, I am likely to get run over. If I know the truth of whether there are tigers in the fields, then I am generally less likely to be mauled by a tiger. If I know whether an area is polluted or not, I can weigh up the risks to my health and make an informed decision as to whether to live there. Now, if I have any of that information and do not share it with others, I may be endangering them. Under consequentalism, that is immoral. Given that truth is a moral issue, then my point that on utilitarian grounds promoting atheism is justified because it is in most cases discouraging a false belief must stand."It supports a person to be kind to their fellow man, to do things like donate and be compassionate"If my opponent can establish that religion is necessary for being kind, then he has an argument that to promote atheism is immoral."if you where [sic] to inform people the 'truth' about death, they couldn't make the informed decision to not die"My opponent wants to imply that given certain death we cannot make informed decisions. On this view, a doctor would have no moral duty to inform a patient they were dying of cancer. A person can make informed decisions about how to live their lives based on the knowledge they are given. Knowledge that you may only have a set time in which to live is valuable knowledge.My opponent admits that "the majority of religious people generally adopt a more realistic and modern view on prejudices, at least to the degree where the majority of religious persons don't go around murdering homosexuals" To the extent that this is true, this is thanks to secular influence.Unfortunately, it is not so in the highly religious Uganda or numerous Islamic societies such as Iran. Over 96% of the population of Uganda are religious.[1] Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill is a legislative proposal that the penalty for homosexuality should be life imprisonment, or in some cases, death.[2] It is only after much international pressure that the death penalty has now been dropped from the bill.Several countries impose the death penalty for homosexual acts, on interpretations of Shari'a law. As of 2006, these include Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Pakistan, the parts of Chechnya under Sharia, and some Islamist dominated regions within Nigeria and Somalia.[3][4]The first law against same-sex marriage was promulgated by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public. The Christian emperor Justinian I (527–565) made homosexuals a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."[5]The Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church was an important factor in increased persecution of homosexuals in the twelfth century.Homosexuals were severely punished through to the nineteenth Century. In the 1730s, as many as one hundred men and boys were executed and denied burial in Holland.[6]It was only with the rise of secularism that "an overtly theological framework no longer dominated the discourse about same-sex attraction. Instead, secular arguments and interpretations became increasingly common. Probably the most important secular domain for discussions of homosexuality was in medicine, including psychology."[7]Dropped argumentMy opponent drops the argument that the non-believer, by not holding any ideas sacred, can help prevent moral stagnation (by being free of sanction against examining certain religious values). As he drops it, it should be considered as accepted.[1] http://www.ubos.org...[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://www.religionfacts.com...[4] http://ilga.org...[5] James Neill, The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations In Human Societies, McFarland. pp228-230 http://moourl.com...[6] Greenberg, David F., 1988, The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp 313-314[7] http://plato.stanford.edu...