Atheism is foolish

Your first argument in the first paragraph was basically assuming that the actions of Christians undisputedly reflect God's wishes. However, this is in fact a fallacy. We do not have any actual data to suggest that God punishes non-believers more than counter-believers. Also, there is nothing to suggest the punishment is equal. You also said that even if counter-belief is punished more, there isn't a strong enough difference. Again, this operates on the assumption that you know how God rewards things. The fact is, you don't, and neither do I. This means that you cannot make any assertion that atheism is illogical because it is necessary to know what God rewards. Without this piece of information, you can make no real assumptions on what is logical or not. You proposed the topic in discussion, and therefore you propose that you know something. I am arguing that in fact, you cannot be, in any way, sure of your claim. Therefore, I believe I win this point. Your second claim is that atheists have no "post-mortem benefits". Well again, this is under the assumption that God rewards blind-faith in his religion. Who are we to say that God condemns skepticism and rewards blind-faith? The opposite is just as likely to be true. It is quite possible that God wants only the morally altruistic people to populate heaven, and thusly the blind-believers aren't the only ones able to reach heaven. If a person is concerned with right or wrong, it would make sense they want to figure out what is right or wrong (i. e. being skeptical of religion as it has no concrete proof). This means there is a 50/50 chance either way. That is, unless you have some concrete proof that God punishes the skeptics. Another thing. .. who is to say that a belief based upon trying to secure the most benefits for yourself is really a belief at all? It is quite possible that God would see that the belief is insincere and thusly not reward it. Your third point (on real-world consequences) basically assumes that atheism is new, and hasn't been around long enough to anger religious people. Well I argue two things. First off, atheism has been around since the earlier days of Greece emerging from some of the popular philosophers. Secondly, if it were going to anger religions, why would time be needed to anger? Christianity immediately angered pagan rulers, so why not atheism? Also, there are negative connotations in the real world stemming from being religious that an atheist can ignore. Consequently, a religious edict can be adverse upon a religious man, whereas it won't affect an atheist. Also, you never argued that an atheist is more likely to be caught up in a war than a Christian (for example). This holds true at the very core of religion. A belief-based religion believes in a God (quite generally, with few exceptions) whereas atheism doesn't. Atheism doesn't preach vocality of its (supposed) correctness. However, religion does. A smart atheist is able to hide his beliefs as to not be punished from a religious figure, whereas a Christian (again, for example) isn't a Christian unless he is vocal about it. Thus leading to a more inevitable clash between religions. As the Pro side, in order to win, you must present a way that you think is correct and fight off the Con's attacks on it. The Con, to win, just has to prove that the Pro's case is unlikely or not true. My belief is that I won today's debate because of several things. First off, the Pro case assumes several things. - That God would reward blind faith over skepticism - That God would punish non-believers just as much as counter-believers - That the correct God is worshipped, or that the correct God's religion is still in practice/has been in practice yet - That God would reward people that don't necessarily believe at a deep level, just at a surface level for the rewards You simply cannot assume any of these things without concrete proof. Since he hasn't brought any of these things up, we have to assume that there is none. Therefore, these points are lost. This is important because his case relies HEAVILY upon these points. Not only that, I have proved that the real-world benefits of atheism outweigh those of religion. As for the post-mortem benefits… well those cannot be ascertained, and therefore it is just as likely that God rewards atheists over blind-believers. Also, he assumes that the right choice will be picked. There are roughly 2500 Gods (Douglas Kreuger's "What Is Atheism") and that makes your likelihood of getting the reward less than 1 in 2500.