Theism is fundamentally a danger to human society.

C1: There is no reasonable justification for a person to believe in God. Many religious people feel adamantly that this is not true, and use unusually crafted arguments to demonstrate this. None of those arguments stand up to logical scrutiny. In the interest of thoroughness I will attempt to brush the most commonly used of these arguments out of the way so that we might continue. First, the principle of causality argument. This argument posits that since no thing can come from nothing (heh), then there must be a creator [god]. [1] This argument is beset by a number of different logical fallacies – which is necessary, because it is used by people adopting a fallacious worldview that can only be justified by force, falsehood or fallacy (I'll get back to that later). The first fallacy befalling the religious principle of causality is the conjunction fallacy. [2] The conjunction fallacy occurs when an argument assumes that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one. The causality argument is guilty of this because the origin of the universe (if one must think about it that way, but we'll get back to that later) seems to be dependent on conditions related to those already explained by general relativity, simply pushed to the extremes of that theory. [3]This makes perfect sense, as the theory of relativity has been established and proven (within 0.002%) [4] based on the current condition of matter – which is vastly less extreme than the conditions of matter existing at the extremes of our own current universe (black holes for instance, are totally extreme), let alone the extremes that have existed at other times. To make the assumption that previous conditions, about which little are known, subscribed to rules totally divorced from this well established theory, is a little silly. As the classic medical saying goes, “an uncharacteristic manifestation of a common ailment is more probable than a characteristic manifestation of a rare one. ” To make the leap beyond that, and assume that all laws of matter sprung into existence following a period of anarchic, lawless void at the hands of a unique, conscious being with no measurable effects on our current universe – is an assumption fully divorced from reason, and the precise definition of the conjunction fallacy. The principle of causality argument is also guilty of the appeal to probability fallacy. Both previously mentioned fallacies are formal fallacies, defined on Wikipedia as “an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form without an understanding of the argument's content. ” All fallacies of this kind are examples of non sequitur. [5] Another religious argument presents that the universe is so astonishingly complex that it must have had an intelligent creator. Before pointing out the inherent fallacies here – I want to point out that any long series of random integers will present patterns of astonishing complexity to the observer, for the very reason that they are random. Now, the argument is essentially that anything sufficiently complex must have been created by an intelligent being; this is clearly another non sequitur. Like any non sequitur, it is self justifying, and has no logical link to its antecedent. The last religious argument I'm going to address posits that since the world is perfectly accommodating to our species, it must have been created for us to inhabit. This argument contains both a false antecedent and a non-sequitur consequent. As for the false antecedent, the world is not perfectly accommodating to us. Yes, it is true, bananas fit our hands quite well and turn yellow when they are ripe [6], but this is not because humans need food. Bananas developed their unique characteristics over millennia of death and failure to propagate. They have developed the characteristics of being easy to eat because that is an excellent way of propagating seed – at least it was until humans developed waste treatment facilities. Likewise, humans have adapted to fit into a harsh and unforgiving world. Over many millennia our ancestors suffered and died because they did not possess the traits necessary to surmount their environmental challenges. [7] That does not sound “perfectly accommodating” to me. It is my hope that, having hung these arguments out to dry, they may not be invoked in the debate to follow. If Con wishes to invoke them he has the burden of first disproving my criticisms. Moving along. C2: On human morality Con has gifted to me the burden of proof in this debate, which I accept. In Con's opening argument, he suggests that there is some kind of balance between damage and benefit when it comes to theism. For this to be the case, however, there would have to be some kind of inherent benefit to believing in a god. There is not. Con seems to imply that love - and reflexively, morality - have something to do with theism or religion. For this to be true, morality would have to be dependent on a belief in god or adherence to a religion. In fact, morality has nothing to do with belief in god or even in a conceptual god itself. Would morality have to do with the god-given “soul”? If that were the case, non-human animals would fail to demonstrate moral influence, but they do not. [8] In fact, morality is as much a developed genetic trait as skin, scales or slime (as it were); morality is a simple reflection of kin selection (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). As George price established: This covariance equation effectively generates changes in trait occurrence in a given population. It also demonstrates effectively how altruism (i. e. morality) developed as an evolutionary trait in humans and other species. A fact one may see explained nicely here [9] 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. I'm running out of room, and in the interest of not springing any arguments on you late in the game, here's what will follow: 1. The necessary conditions for cooperation: class equivalence, moral and logical equivalence. 2. The dangers of subjective, egocentric belief – the threat of the “chosen. ” 3. How do ideas become widely held? The function of the scientific establishment and global scientific cooperation. C3: An egocentric worldview based on an illogical foundation is a danger to peace and cooperation. Epistemological argument: Holding a belief which cannot be demonstrated as true (except that one believes it) is a danger to society, and this can be demonstrated as follows. In order to possess knowledge of any kind one must first possess concepts of truth and fact. A concept of these terms can only exist within a universal standard of reasoned vetting, which must necessarily be based on universal terms of human perception: empiricism. There can be no deviation from these terms in assessing the grounds for knowledge if any fact is ever to be known universally or agreed upon between peoples. No terms or definition of 'truth' or 'fact' can exist which allows for the existence of god. It is unreasonable to believe in something which cannot be established as true. Not only is it therefore unreasonable to believe in god, but because of the need for universal, consistent terms in establishing truth, a belief in god disrupts the very basis of all terms of truth, resulting in an anarchic or, at best, inconsistent and inevitably hypocritical method of thought in the believer. If common grounds of truth cannot be established between peoples, the door is opened for preferential treatment and supposedly moralistic abuses. Therefore, theism is inherently a threat to human society. My citations can be found on the comments page. I had to exclude them because they took up too many characters- sorry. I eagerly await your response.