Theism is fundamentally a danger to human society.

Notice that Pro gave me the first opportunity to offer an argument, which I took, and then he completely ignored my arguments to make his own. So I push all of my opening arguments into the next round, that Theism does a lot of good in peoples' lives and leads them (if they would not already) to good as a society. Christianity is a religion of love and peace, and we are called to live in peace with each other and to help those less fortunate than ourselves. It is hard to understand how anyone would consider that to be a fundamental danger to society. Now, it kind of pains me to do this but most of his arguments are largely irrelevant. I will respond to them now:C1: There is no reasonable justification for a person to believe in God. This is clearly false, especially since atheists are in the minority. [1] The vast majority of people identify with some sort of Theistic or Deistic religion. According to this gallup poll, atheists would have to tell 84% of the Earth's population they have no justification for their beliefs. However, this debate is not about the existence for God so I will not respond to Pro's criticisms (which don't hold up to scrutiny, anyway). Since we only have two rounds and limited characters, it would only be wasting space. C2: On human morality. Here, Pro's argument is largely irrelevant. A God does not have to be real for believers to live in the way that God wants them to. Whether the Christian God exists or not is irrelevant to the way I choose to live my life. I believe that God exists (and there is good evidence to suggest that He does), therefore I will live my life in a way that pleases Him. If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't necessary live my life in this way. Pro so far has not fulfilled the burden of proof. He is simply trying to show that Christian morality has come about through Evolution, which isn't necessarily true. The reason I live my life by Christian morality is because I am a Christian and I believe God exists. While the argument from nature could be used to show why I wouldn't murder someone, it cannot be used to show why I would treat others better than myself. If my morality is nothing more than nature, I would never have a reason to keep my word, or help those less fortunate than myself, because it would be detrimental to me. Yet I freely choose to help others, sometimes even at detriment to myself. As C. S. Lewis has postulated, if our morality were simply due to "herd mentality," then the stronger impulse would always win out, which is does not. Sometimes people even risk their lives to help others, even strangers. [2]C3: An egocentric worldview based on an illogical foundation is a danger to peace and cooperation. Perhaps it's still early in the game, but Pro's argument fails superbly here. While we may not be able to prove a God exists empirically, beyond the shadow of a doubt, neither can we prove atheism. If Pro asserts that Theism is a fundamental danger to society because it cannot be proven, he must also reject atheism for the same reason. In fact, agnosticism and Theism are more honest positions than atheism. Let me explain. In order to say there is no tea in China, I would have to scour every inch of China to make sure there was no tea there. But if I were to find one tea leaf, or one bag of Lipton, I would be proven wrong. In order for atheism to be true, one must be able to scour the entire universe and not find a single trace of God. This is simply impossible. Humans cannot scour every inch of the universe, certainly not at our present level of technology. However, only one piece of evidence for God is enough to disprove atheism and prove a God exists. Agnostics also take the more sensical position than atheism by simply saying we either don't know, or can't know a God exists. But atheism is the most brash position of all. I will respond to the points of his argument. "In order to possess knowledge of any kind one must first possess concepts of truth and fact. "I can get behind this. "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. "This is not completely true. For one thing, everyone has some concept of God. So under the terms of this point, we can conclude that a God exists because humans have some perception of God, even though we can't necessarily prove Him through the five senses. However, we do have eyewitness account of supernatural miracles, such as Jesus' resurrection (in the four Gospels). People have witnessed supernatural events. Secondly, scientists are trying to prove things that we can't know actually exist, such as alternate dimensions and dark matter. Plus, atoms were once unknown and yet scientists were still able to prove exist. Then they thought there was nothing smaller than an atom yet one day they were able to split the atom and see what was inside. So not all things must be based on empiricism. If it were, most of what humanity has accomplished wouldn't be possible. "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. "This is clearly false. It was once universally accepted that the sun revolved around the Earth, yet folks like Copernicus and Galileo had the daunting task of changing the course of Astronomy as we knew it and causing us to adopt a heliocentric view of the galaxy. Scientific discoveries have to sometimes be made by "thinking outside the box. ""No terms or definition of 'truth' or 'fact' can exist which allows for the existence of god [sic]. "Again, this is clearly false. We can argue from design why the universe needs a designer. We know that things need to be designed by an intelligent being. People all through the history of humankind have accepted a belief in a god, so clearly there are terms or definitions of truth and fact which allows for the existence of God. To believe otherwise is effectively to bury your head in the sand. "It is unreasonable to believe in something which cannot be established as true. "The existence of God can reasonably be established as true. It can't be empirically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but neither can the nonexistence of God. "Not only is it therefore unreasonable to believe in god [sic]. .. "This is a non sequitur. Believing in a God which cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt does not disrupt the very basis of all terms of truth, and I don't believe you've shown how it can. Someone's belief in God, in most cases, makes them a better person, not a worse person. Even if they don't believe as you do, you haven't proven how believing in a God is a fundamental danger to society. "If common grounds. .. "Again, this doesn't follow. Belief in God leads most people to a great level of morality. Those who would abuse morality a religion teaches probably doesn't honestly follow that religion, they are attempting to use it to control others. I'm not sure what preferential treatment you believe this would lead to. "Therefore, theism is inherently a threat to human society. "You haven't adequately shown this. Simply having differing beliefs is not detrimental to society, it can actually help society because we all look at the universe in different ways. Humans were not all meant to be the same. So far Pro's arguments have been largely irrelevant or simply don't follow from the premises. I look forward to the next round. [1] . http://www.gallup.com...;[2] Lewis, Clive Staples, Mere Christianity, HarperCollins Books, pp. 9-10