Spreading atheism brings more benefit to an individual or to a society than not spreading it.

First, I would like to defend my own arguments A1.1 "Con has defeated his/her own argument and DID NOT follow his/her own rules as afterlife cannot be proposed" I would like to show that I wasn"t breaking any rules. Statement 2 round 1, clearly says that both sides must agree for this debate"s sake that there is no afterlife. However, one is still allowed to use the term as long as the existence of it does not help either house"s argument. I did not claim that in my argument that Day of Judgment really do exist. Instead, I stated that Christians believe that they do. I can say to a friend of mine, "My son believes in Santa Claus". But it doesn"t mean that Santa Claus exists, or that I believe that he exists. Those are two different things and I hope voters are aware of this false accusation. And I beg Pro to read the rules carefully. It"s already the second time now. A1.2 "we can all see that some wars, disputes, early imperialism and other negative events are tied to religion" Now, Pro shows that he doesn"t really understand the topic of the debate. I am not arguing that a religious community is better than an atheist community. I am arguing whether SPREADING atheism would benefit a society. In my first argument in Round 2, I said spreading atheism to a Christian community would increase crime-rate. The acquiring of a new-found freedom of a religious person will increase the likelihood of a person to do crime. New-found freedom here means the freedom from the need to obey God. Your argument shows only how bad a religion is, while the topic is about the change of state from a religious to a non-religious society. Let me make it clear, your job was to prove that the attempt of change of a religious society to non-religious one would benefit that society. A1.3 "part of the reason certain countries are in tensed relations are also due to the religion? Suicide bombers? Hate crimes in the name of religion? " My argument stands. Spreading of atheism is being done as we speak. Yet we still have hate crimes and tensed relations due to religion. Thus, this statement only shows that spreading atheism isn"t helping the situation. A2.1 "This statement is completely denied as same as the Con, I can argue that no one can prove the existence of god THUS making it a WASTE of time and resources to spread it. " I didn"t argue that it would be beneficial to spread the theory that God do exist. Arguing about that won"t even help my case. I am only against spreading atheism, not for spreading religion. This is a straw man fallacy from Pro and I hope voters ignore this statement. A2.2 "No one has seemed to completely prove the existence of Aliens yet the spread of the idea seems worldwide and so dominant. " Here Pro fails to show the benefit of spreading atheism. Pro even fails to show the benefit of research to prove inter-galactic life forms. Though, proving even that won"t support his case. A2.3 "Religion. " We are arguing whether spreading atheism benefits society more than not spreading it. I won"t and don"t need to defend religion in order for me to win this debate. Next, I will defend my own argument. B1.1" Read carefully as to the FULL definition. - the THEORETICAL or practical understanding of a subject" Finally, a mistake from my side, which Pro is so eager to point out. I admit this mistake of not properly defining the word "knowledge". The term that I was looking for was actually "unproved knowledge". Thank you Pro for correcting me, but it doesn"t change a thing. Before, I said that knowledge and theory is different because the latter is unproved. It seems knowledge can also be unproved. Thus, I maintain my argument by just adding "unproved" to the word "knowledge". B2.1 "i have rebutted and proven as to why fact/fiction spread is NOT a waste of time or resources" If Pro is referring to the research of inter-galactic life forms, then I argue that, Pro has not showed the benefits from those researches. And since Pro didn"t show those benefit, I have no need to argue against something he didn"t propose. B3.1 ", I have already shown that Atheism IS in fact a form of knowledge thus making your argument invalid. " Yes. Atheism is a form of knowledge, but not a proved one. Thus my argument stands. B4.1 "Con is on the edge of breaching our constitutional rights. " This is another false accusation. I am merely stating my opinion that, spreading atheism brings harm to the society. I have the right to state my opinion. Here, Pro fails to counter my example of letting pedophile keeps their religion. Worse, Pro ignores my statement that, he has insufficient examples of benefits to support his stand. Pro has more rebuts against my argument than arguments to support his own stand. Pro"s arguments and rebuttals are weak. Some are off-topic. On the other hand, my arguments still stand. But, I am looking forward for Pro"s conclusion. Thank you for reading.