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

I thank Con for clearing up some arguments for me A1. conceded by both people. A2. Con says that lower levels of "religiousness" match lower levels of social problems. This is untrue because "Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime, and are often lower in this regard."(1) And also from the same article it says "correlation does not mean causation. It could very well be that there is something else underlying this trend; the US is different enough from Europe where that's entirely possible." The study does not prove that religion does indeed hurt society. B1. Con says that religion hurts society because I said that people were immoral, I am not saying that if you are religious that you are immoral. I'm saying that you are accepting lies. And as I said before ignorance is bliss in this case. Also, if you do think that everyone who is religious is immoral cons impacts are completely non-unique. If indeed only 16 percent of the world remains moral then we should be seeing all of cons impacts, which we are not. B2. this is what Con said in B2 "If we believe something to be incredibly important to us, it is our right to do so, and our society supports us. Something on the magnitude of a definitive disproof of gods would certainly be that important, thus it is proper to do so, thus we should do it." this is what I answered with "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." What I am basically saying is it doesn't matter if it is important, what matters is the harms outweigh the benefits of giving society definitive disproof of gods. So this argument does apply. Con does not answer this, instead he says it doesn't apply then says "extend my b2 arguments." So we must assume that he concedes with this argument. B2 is out of the round. B3. well I made a typo when I said "religions that have always been non-religious," also con said "Whether religion leads directly to dysfunctionality, or religions merely flourish in dysfunctional societies, neither conclusion from this study flatters religion. The first tells us that religion is a hindrance to the development of moral character, and the second that religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems). [14]" The correlation does not prove this. In fact, Con pretty much beats this argument with a prior argument. Con was saying to the immoral argument that only sixteen percent of people in the world are not religious. That means that most countries in the world are more on the religious side. We can't make a correlation between the countries when so few countries are non-religious. If it was fifty fifty then we could make a correlation. But because it isn't, the study doesn't prove what Con says it does. Those conclusions can not be withdrawn from the correlation because there are to many other variables factoring into the equation. Like the number of countries that are more "non-religious" and the population in those countries. Also he does not met the grounds of expediency because it does not actively help lower social problems and it does not create a better environment. If I'm a murderer I would still murder whether I am religious or not, if I'm a rapist I would still rape people whether I'm religious or not. Conclusion I have adressed all of Cons arguments, B1 B2 and B3 are not voters. Con concedes that it is possible to strip away faith so you must accept my impacts listed in my first argument. They have a 100 percent probability, Con does not address that the impacts will happen instead he tries to turn it so you must accept my impacts. The harms outweigh whatever benefit we might have from not having religion. Vote Pro. Sources: (1) http://stupac2.blogspot.com...