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

Pro has defined neither "God/god" nor "should. " I interpret "God" in light of the list of various religions, giving it the meaning of "supernatural being at the focus of any given religion. " I interpret "should" as a word "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [1]. " Thus, to negate the resolution, I must show that revealing the truth is either: binding in law or conscience [2], in conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech [3], or a means of achieving a particular end [4]. If I can demonstrate any of these things, I will have shown that we should reveal this information. I will first offer two points of disagreement to pro's R1 argumentation (A1, A2), then offer arguments from obligation, propriety, and expediency (B1, B2, B3) in support of revealing the information. A1. Pro warns us of the consequences of stripping away people's faith with our knowledgeable arguments. I argue this is impossible. As the philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote, "It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason. [5]" Pro has asked not to let this debate focus on proving the existence of gods, and I will respect that. However, I invite the reader to look at the archives of debate. org, the current state of theological literature, and then to every religious writing and utterance back to when our earliest African ancestor wondered if there was any higher being watching over him. In your search, you will be unable to find a reasoned proof of any specific god. You have to go no further than this website to see many reasoned, clever people make arguments for a god, but these clever people never try to argue for the god they actually believe in. They couch their arguments in terms of "first causes" and "ultimate realities," not actual personified deities that influence humanity according to their likes and dislikes. If reason were capable of tearing down faith, it would be enough to point out that there is no evidence for the specific god of any belief system that can withstand the most rudimentary examination; and that would be that. They fact that this is not the case; that people reject following the evidence in favor of their beliefs, that they reject reason for faith; shows us that our new information would have no impact on people who operate on the basis of faith. Instead, faith dominates and reason would be whipped into service to find ways to reject our information, regardless of its factual value. I recognize that some people's faith may be weak and they may be swayed by our hypothetical evidence. In those cases, I find it doubtful that their faith was important enough to them that its rejection would induce suicide or insanity. This negates all of pro's harms as they all rely on the stripping away of faith. A2. If you reject the argument in A1, there is empirical evidence countering pro's harm claims. Pro suggests that a lack of faith would correlate with higher suicide rates, doing bad things, and ‘going crazy. ' However, a recent study shows that the less religious a nation is, the lower the suicide and murder rates are [6]. The study does not speak to mental health issues, but in light of established evidence favoring con in the two out of three cases where data is available, the burden of proof is clearly on pro to show that the unknown third case bucks the trend. With this evidence, pro's harms are not only negated but turned. If we wish to lower suicide and murder rates, we should do everything we can to decrease faith in religion, not protect it. B1. Ironically, many religions would create a moral obligation to share this information if we had it. Limiting ourselves to Christianity and Hinduism as per pro's R1: Leviticus 19:11: Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another. Job 27:4: My lips will not speak wickedness, and my tongue will utter no deceit. Proverbs 6:16-17: These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11.1: Let your conduct be marked by truthfulness in word, deed, and thought. Laws of Manu 4.138: One should speak the truth and speak it pleasingly; should not speak the truth in an unpleasant manner nor should one speak untruth because it is pleasing; this is the eternal law. Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 329.13: It is always proper to speak the truth. It is better again to speak what is beneficial than to speak what is true. I hold that this is truth which is fraught with the greatest benefit to all creatures. Clearly these religions create a moral obligation for us to tell the truth. Knowing that there is no god and not informing others is at best a lie of omission and certainly does not follow the commands to speak the truth and avoid deception. Even if you argue it is not a lie, it is still a deception. Thus there is a religious obligation to spread the information and so it should be done. B2. I do not know if pro is American, but as I am, and considerations of propriety demand a societal standard to compare an action against, I will use American society for my comparison. Americans value free speech and the free exercise of religion. This is the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights and a concept held sacred in our society. 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. B3. Revealing the disproof of religion would be a means to an end. As discussed in A2, the less that religion influences a society, the less social problems there are. Thus, presenting believers with irrefutable evidence against the existence of their god may cause some of them to abandon their belief. As discussed in A1, only those not truly fervent are likely to be swayed, but that is still progress towards the goal. This meets the standard of expediency, thus we should reveal the information. Conclusion. You only have to accept one reason why we should reveal the information, the argument from obligation, propriety, or expediency. Any one satisfies overturning the resolution. Pro's listed harms for doing so are not only negated by argument, but turned through empirical example. [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://m-w.com... [3] . http://m-w.com... [4] . http://m-w.com... [5] . http://www.quotationcollection.com... [6] . http://www.timesonline.co.uk...