If God doesn't exist, we should not show the evidence to the world.

I thank Con for his time, I look forward to the rest of this debate. I will now address each of his points: A1. Con asserts that peoples faith cannot be stripped from them, and if it is that is because their faith is "weak." But isn't it true people can be swayed and their thoughts changed? Just look at debate, the purpose of it is to persuade the judge to your way of thinking. If you provided irrefutable evidence that there is no such thing as God(s) then people's minds will be swayed. For example, successful missionaries swayed their listeners faith to Christianity. I admit that maybe the most stubborn religious people might not be swayed, but the majority of people will be swayed. This argument gives me access to my impacts. Con also says that people will reject the information, people do not reject things that are put right into their faces, they might reject it for a short period of time but eventually be swayed. When Galileo proved that the earth wasn't flat and when Copernicus proved that our planet and the other planets in our solar system revolved around the sun, the theories were rejected for a time but then eventually were accepted. Even if some people completely rejected the evidence then my impacts will still happen to at least some people. A2. Con says that Country's without religion actually do better off, the problem with this argument is that it does not include what happens to the country if it starts off religiously and then becomes more non-religious. If a country was non-religious when it started off, then the sudden desertion of their "comfort blanket"( religion) would not have an impact upon them. So this evidence is irrelevant and cannot be considered for this resolution. B1. The Con claims that religion itself says that we have a moral obligation to tell the truth, this should not be considered in the evaluation of this round because if the hypothetical evidence proves that God does not exist then the religions themselves will be lying. So any moral obligation that they stated to tell the truth would be gone because they broke their own stated moral obligation. B2. The Con says we have a freedom of speech and we should tell people if it would be important to them. I answer with if this evidence hurts them then in this case "ignorance is bliss." If the people are ignorant of this evidence then it will hurt them far less than providing the evidence. B3. As stated before this evidence only deals with religions that have always been non-religious. It does not deal with countries that were first more on the religious side so you cannot be sure that this will actually benefit them. In this case the Con cannot prove that his example of America would indeed benefit from its change in faith. I mean if a country suddenly turns less religious its not as if criminals are going to stop murdering people. Plus, this study does not prove that the reason less religious countries indeed have a lesser crime rate than more religious countries is because of religion. There might be several other factors that contribute to this, like population. (And by the way, I am American, just in case you were wondering in your speech). Conclusion I have proved that all of Cons claims are wrong and you should indeed not reveal the information because it will cause the impacts as listed in my first speech. You take away the comfort of knowing that there is someone watching over you, stripping someone's faith will cause back lash. So therefore the impacts far outweigh whatever benefits we may have from giving this evidence to the people.