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

Thank you for your arguments, Pro. It is a minor issue perhaps, but I think I should mention it. Round 1 was for you to accept the debate, but you seem to want to start off immediately. Fine with me, but try to follow the rules next time. =) This leads to minor changes. You have to conclude first, which is in Round 3. I will conclude second which is in round 4. After my conclusion the debate will end, which means you should stay quiet for Round 4. But we'll see. It's not a competition, but I would like to experience a real debate. And please remind me also, if I did anything wrong. I'll start with my arguments before my rebuttals. Main argument I am going to support the statement that, spreading atheism benefits less than not spreading it. First, I will point out the danger in spreading atheism. Secondly, I will point out the benefits of not spreading atheism. 1)Increased crime rate A society benefits from a low crime-rate. Take a society, which consists of mostly Christians, for an example. According to their religion, they will be judged after their deaths [1]. They will go to either hell or heaven, judging from how good or bad they were while they live. This not only plants fear which prevents them from doing evil, but also encourages them to do good deeds. Spreading atheism to this community will destroy their faiths, and increase the likelihood that they will commit crime. High crime rate dangers a society. Therefore, spreading atheism to a society dangers it, not benefitting it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... 2)Waste of time and resources. Now, I would like to point out the benefits of not spreading atheism. Using time and resource in an unwasteful manner benefits the society. Like Pro agreed in Round 1, we are not arguing whether atheism is the truth or not. The fact, that no one can yet prove that god exist or that god do not exist shows already that spreading atheism is a waste of time and resource. Why take your time to spread things, which haven"t been proven yet? I totally agree with researches to prove whether god exists. But spreading it before reaching the conclusion? I find this act not only wasteful but shows that they aren"t aware of real problems such as, racism, global financial crisis, poverty and global warming. Thus, not spreading atheism gives more benefit to that society. Now, for my rebuttals: Rebuttals against Pro's points 1)"And knowledge by itself is important" By definition, knowledge is facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education. http://oxforddictionaries.com... Since accepting this debate forces Pro to agree that atheism may or may not be true (see Round 1), and statements which may be true are NOT facts, which allows me to say for this debate that, atheism is NOT a form of knowledge. I agree the use of the word "theory", which Pro did use in a couple of occasions. But using the word "knowledge" would only confuse the readers. 2)First atom model leads to second model. While I agree that, spreading a false theory could have its benefit, which can be seen in Pro's example of the first atom model, but it does not mean that the spreading of every false theory would bring benefit. And the situation is totally different. The first atom model was proven to be true (at that time) and later on rejected because new experiments proved otherwise. Whereas atheism has never being proven to be true and thus does not deserve to be spread. It is an irresponsible thing to spread false theory, only to hope that by doing so it will lead to the truth. In the process, society will suffer high crime-rates and waste of resource like I argued earlier. The costs are too high for a theory which might or might not give benefit in the future. 3)"To be informed is so important" and "Atheism should be spread as a form of information/knowledge" Again, Atheism cannot be considered a knowledge, not yet and not in this debate. Thus, it is not important to be informed with something that may or may not be true. 4)"With the spread of atheism, people can define their own personality and beliefs much better" Some personalities are better left undefined. For an example, a pedophile individual might be better of being left religious. So I'm not accepting this as a benefit unless Pro can give other examples which clearly shows that it benefits an individual or society. So I conclude that, spreading atheism does not give more benefit to an individual or a society, than not spreading it, because it leads to higher crime rates and it wastes time and resources. Pro's arguments, in my opinion, fail to prove that spreading atheism gives more benefit to an individual or society than not spreading it. Thank you. Now is Pro turn to rebut my argument.