Materialism is the cause of the development of Atheism

An interesting second round by Pro. I should note at the outset that for some reason, he has chosen not to rebut the causal fallacy portion of my argument. Pro has yet to establish any sort of structured positive case for the resolution.Responses:>> "Income does not show how much money is spent, or what the money is used for, it just shows how much is coming in."This is a good point... a good point for Con. While what one uses money for may be more indicative of his materialistic leanings, the amount of income is dispositive of one's materialist capacity. If someone has the capacity for great materialism, yet chooses to act in a way that belies this capacity, then it undermines Pro's contention that wealth leads to materialism.>> "In places that are financial more stable, all organized religion does for someone is teach them about their religion. In low income places and third world countries organized religion has much more value and significance."Unwarranted assumption. Further, who is Pro to determine whether the poor farmer in Ethiopia places more value on his religion than the urbanite in Chicago?? And even beyond that, Pro completely ignores the fact that in low income places and third world countries, materialistic considerations actually matter more. The hierarchy of needs (example: Maslow's - http://en.wikipedia.org...) begins with material needs ad steadily becomes more ephemeral. In third-world countries, people are necessarily more concerned with material needs than with spiritual needs because they cannot even begin to contemplate their spiritual needs until basic material ones are fulfilled... so in the end, Pro's own point on this issue shows that religion matters less to those who have little.>> "Community life is other places around the world revolve around organized religion; the US is the exception, not the rule."I'm not sure what U.S. Pro is talking about... can Pro name one single community activity that Americans do MORE than go to church? Vote? Go to town hall meetings? Arguably, given the state of American society, community is the only real remaining purpose religion serves in this country.>> "Con's evidence only shows the overall, and does not have statistics based on social classes, which he claimed to be important in round 1. "…the atheist, after all, has nothing else to believe in, so why not focus on worldly possessions?" Aside from the fact that the quote that Pro picks here has nothing to do with the breakdown of social classes... it was Pro himself in the second round that suggested that social classes had to do with the acquisition of wealth. I'm curious how my statistics, which present strata based on wealth, could possibly not describe social classes in the exact way that Pro uses the term.>> "Atheism is a religious belief..."Incorrect - Atheism can be empirical, epistemological, cognitive, or even metaphysical... but it is certainly not a religious belief.>> "Atheist still have a soul, so most of them, even though they don't believe in a god, still believe in the good of humanity and have some sort of morals."Which is, of course, completely irrelevant to the resolution unless Pro is also going to argue that materialism is immoral.>> "In ancient times, when religious communities where dominant, the religious (priest) class and positions where not only for a religious purpose, but also served as a political position. If one was in political power, or seeking political power, one would have to correspond with the religious officials."This is an interesting point, but actually hurts Pro's case. If materialism is, as Pro suggests here, partially represented by power (i.e. seeking power is a materialistic behavior) and power requires theism... then materialism causes theism, not atheism. Consider - if one wanted power, one should be a theist, not an atheist, no? How many (openly) atheist presidents of the United States have there been?? Openly atheist Monarchs in the UK? Spain? Italy? France?>> "When the King of England, Henry the VIII, was unable to get a divorce for the Pope, he broke away from the Church so he could be able to try to have a male heir to inherit his kingdom. This was a political issue that had nothing to do with the Churches' teachings or social classes."Not only is this incorrect, but it's a terrible example. First, the entire reason for the King's breaking away from the church was precisely a difference in the Church's teachings - specifically on divorce. Second, if this was really about political power, what additional power did the King get? None! He cannot improve upon his position of power because he is KING!>> "They reason why having political power was important was because it was often the gateway to obtaining wealth, thus, change in religion (or conversion to atheism), was because it lead to a more materialist world, rather than religion had problematic teachings."If this were in fact true, we would hardly ever see conversions of people from one religion to a different, more ascetic religion. Yet these types of conversions happen all the time. Further, we would never expect to see conversions of atheists to any religion... yet these conversions happen as well.>> "Con's evidence only shows the average wealth of major religions in a first world country, whose society no longer revolves around religious communities, therefore making his evidence true, but irrelevant and does not help him prove that atheism would develop regardless of the material world." This "conclusion" is simply incorrect. Well, it is correct only insofar as my conclusions about distribution of wealth in religious groups is true... But dismissing the United States as an irrelevant party to this topic is simply idiotic. The United States has the perhaps unique position of being both one of the most materialist AND religious countries in the world. *******************************************************************As really more of a side note, since I have some leftover room, and Pro has not really rebutted either of my contentions from the first round, I'd like to expound on the idea that atheism would develop regardless of the material world.Obviously Pro mean "regardless of materialistic considerations" because without the material world, there would be no people to be materialists, which would negate the resolution in and of itself...But more importantly, Pro seems to be under the mistaken impression that materialism and atheism are inherently linked - the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy I pointed out in the second round. Here's a quick example of how atheism could develop absent materialism.Science describes facts about the world around us. These facts are not materialist in any way - i.e. there is no inherent VALUE to a description of phenomena. If science fails to produce any evidence that a god exists, atheism could easily develop completely independent of any considerations of value.Pro may argue that science itself is a materialist leaning, but it could only be "materialist" to the extent that it is preoccupied with the physical world. But this preoccupation is clearly not the kind of "on-balance" preoccupation that Pro clearly means - science has nothing else to analyze... and lack of other ventures is not de facto preoccupation.ConclusionI've put forth two major objections to Pro's resolution, both of which have gone unanswered. I've also shown how Pro's tangential considerations of what I was referring to in round 2 are erroneous, unfounded, or simply wrong.The resolution is thus:NEGATED.