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

For my conclusion, i would like to categorize, what was argued, in two parts. The reason for this is due to Pro not fully understanding the topic. He should be searching for benefits of SPREADING atheism NOT advantages of atheism over religious society. Pro should be looking for the benefits of the transition from a religious to non-religious society, not observing two different society statically. The first part is, "Arguments which involved SPREADING of atheism", and the second part is "Unrelated argument 1) Arguments which involved spreading of atheism. (from me) 1a)I argue spreading atheism increase crime rate. I'm NOT saying atheist societies have higher crime rates. I believe the contrary. But spreading atheism to an already religious society can cause the members of the society to commit crime due to the newly found freedom. Here Pro argue, that i did not follow the rules. I did and i explained it. WE as DEBATERS should agree that afterlife does not exist. In my main argument, I only said the CHRISTIANS believed in the Day of Judgement. The Christians mentioned are NOT the debaters, thus THEM believing in afterlife does not makes ME a rule-breaker. The rules mean, i can't argue "Spreading atheism would cause the Christians to lose faith to go to hell". I can't argue that since afterlife does not exist. Ladies and Gentlemen, please understand this difference. 1b)Spreading atheism wastes time and resource. (from me) Since atheism is unproved and would worsen an ALREADY religious society, spreading it would only waste resources. This point became much stronger, since Pro unable to give any benefits of spreading atheism. Pro argue that, if the research of intergalactic form benefits, spreading atheism would also benefit. I said in reply, the benefits of those researches doesn't benefit spreading atheism. 1c)Knowledge should be expose (from Pro) Pro argues that atheism should be spread because knowledge should be exposed. In other words, Pro is stating, Atheism should be spread because Atheism( a knowledge) should be spread. Again, there is no benefit attached to it. Pro gives an example, the first atom model, to show that knowledge is worth spreading even though it is false. But i argued, a benefit in spreading one false knowledge does not mean every false knowledge should be exposed. 2)Unrelated arguments These arguments should be ignored because it does NOT builds up my or his case. 2a) Historic wars caused by religion. Suicide bombing. (from Pro) Here Pro is simply stating the bad things religious society do. I am not defending religious society. Pro is attacking no one with this statement. 2b) Spreading knowledge about the existence of God is also a waste of resource. (from Pro) Again. Pro is attacking no one. But Pro put it in a way, that is sounds like he is attacking me. I hope voters are not easily fooled. My conclusion is Pro's defenses are weak, his attacks weaker, each i have sufficiently rebutted. I have two points which still stands. Two points against none should make me a clear winner. Pro has better words than me, that i have to admit. But when it comes down to it, the one who has the better argument wins. Ladies and Gentleman, thank you for reading. Pro, may the best man wins.