If God doesn't exist, we should not show the evidence to the world.

I would like to emphasize B1 as an easy voting point. A1. In light of pro's B1 argument I concede A1 completely and embrace the idea that presenting people with our evidence will change their mind. A2. I need to see a lot of support for the claim that the UK and other less-religious countries started off as non-religious. I confess to finding the claim absurd on its face [7][8]. Even were we to grant it, all we have is pro's speculation that our actions creating lower levels of religion would have different effects than the lower levels already observed. The cited study shows that lower levels of religiousness match lower levels of social problems. This turns any harms pro claims, leaving the reader to count any credibility in the following arguments as a win for con. B1. Pro has made a much stronger case for my side than I had tried to, therefore I accept pro's interpretation and go on to examine the impacts. In pro's R2 B1 argument, s/he has stated that in our hypothetical all religious people are in contravention of their moral obligations and are thus immoral. Having accepted pro's labeling of all religious people in the world as immoral, pro goes on to say that, once we possess this information, the religious will have lost any moral obligation to tell the truth. Consider that 84% of the world's population is religious [9]. Honesty is vital to the banking industry [10], science and discovery [11], law and justice systems [12], and relationships [13]. With only 16% of the world's population remaining honest and moral, we are looking at a collapse of global finance, technological stagnation, the rise of oppression and corruption, and the beginning of a short and brutal existence in which no one can trust anyone. In this world of poverty, regression, and barbarism, war and chaos cannot be far behind. This is a recipe for mass disaster, and in the age of nuclear weaponry, possible extinction as those in control succumb to the same fate as the rest of us. When faced with such looming horror, the only way to stop this would seem to be to deconvert as many of the religious as possible, since pro only asserts that the religious would lose all obligations toward honesty. Our only chance is to deconvert as many religious as possible, and hope that we can do so before it's too late. Having ceded A1 to pro, sharing our ironclad proof is the best way to save us and now there's no downside to using it. Possible lack of hope among the religious does not compare against a global breakdown of society. Thus, following pro's argument in B2 to its logical conclusion, to prevent the destruction of human civilization we must share the information to promote non-religion and restore honesty and morality. B2. Pro appears to have misread my argument here. I said "If we believe something to be incredibly important to us" while pro has countered as if I had said "If we believe something to be incredibly important to them. " As his counterargument only applied to the mistaken version, it is irrelevant. Please extend my B2 argument from round 1. B3. I am amused by the concept of "religions that have always been non-religious," but do not think it advances pro's argument. Please refer to A2 for further discussion on this. While I indeed cannot prove that America will become less violent if it sheds religion, nor that correlation equals causation in the case of Europe and Scandinavia, correlation never equals causation. We have to take correlation and decide what it means ourselves. As Matthew Provonsha wrote on this study "Whether religion leads directly to dysfunctionality, or religions merely flourish in dysfunctional societies, neither conclusion from this study flatters religion. The first tells us that religion is a hindrance to the development of moral character, and the second that religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems). [14]" In either case, my B3 argument still meets the grounds for expediency: a means of achieving a particular end. Whether it actively helps lower social problems or merely creates an environment in which lower social problems are possible, it is still a means towards the goal. This is something pro did not address and thus remains as a voting point for con. Conclusion. While B2 and B3 remained largely unaddressed by pro's arguments and are still possible voting points for con, B1 is the clearest and easiest vote for con as such a vote prevents global collapse, stagnation, oppression, strife, warfare, and nuclear holocaust. [7] . http://www.bbc.co.uk... [8] . http://www.google.com... [9] . http://www.adherents.com... [10] . http://chestofbooks.com... [11] . http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk... [12] . http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:cIa1OI_pK9YJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/01-2019.asp.html+importance+of+honesty+justice+system&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a [13] . http://www.helium.com... [14] . http://www.skeptic.com...