Atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the greatest threat to science

Ok. Unfortunately, I do not have time for framework because I have to both argue and refute in the same round. But, since you never said that no guidelines will be set in the debate, my guideline about religion still stands. The fourth assertion was pulled from your quote in the first round, "...and pose the greatest threat to science (and mankind as a whole.) And third, all three assertions must be proven (..."I am 100% certain that atheists etc..") They are not all the same thing, so don't even try to make that argument.Continuing on. I will make arguments in my favor first, then refute my opponent's arguments.==Evolution of Science== To fully understand atheists' impact on science, we must go back into time. It is well known that a lot of people in the early years were religious, and had Gods to explain everything. For example, when thunder riddled the sky, it was because of Zeus or Vishnu [1]. However, it was mostly because of atheists that science sprung forward. Atheists typically deny all religious explanations, and thus go in search of answers to the greatest questions in the universe themselves.People who did not believe in God, or any God, were the first to question beliefs. Atheists moved away from supernatural beliefs, thus progressing science significantly. Science, in general, might not exist without the Atheists' ideals of rejecting religious beliefs and testing out theories for themselves. Any way you look at it, science historically started due to atheist ideals.There is a very clear example of all of this. It's called the Renaissance. After the Black Death, people began questioning the Catholic Church [2] and some even becoming atheists. This rejection of religion and atheist tendencies sparked one of the most artistic and scientific events in the history of the world: The Renaissance. If it wasn't for atheists questioning religion, the Renaissance would not have happened. Science, today, is here because of atheists.==Atheists do not block human progress==The thought that atheists would block human progress is preposterous. In fact, there is a better argument to be made that they significantly increase human progress. Atheists put a whole new concept and thinking into science after the middle ages [3], and shed light on how the universe might work. Science can not simply be limited to one simple idea and pursuing it; science must be open to new ideas and comparing theories to find out which one is more likely (atheism v. theism) and propelling the thinking of the world forward.In fact, a great many of modern famous scientists do not believe in a God. For example, Alan Turing. He is a man who is recognized for creating computer science and artificial technology [4]. He opened up a whole new theory in science, and showed that artificial science is very productive. In fact, he may be the cause for artificial intelligence (computers, robots) that are vital to science today. Alan created a whole new technology world in the human race. In no way, did this atheist block human progress.Furthermore, atheist thinking is much more scientific than theist thinking. Atheists often turn to science to explain the universe, whereas many theists turn to religion. Atheist thinking can be composed to rejecting certain ideals and pursuing new ones, which is vital to the progression of science and mankind as a whole. In fact, Evolution was due to the questioning of beliefs. Evolution sparked research into fossils, carbon dating, etc. If not for atheists, the world would not be the same as it is today. And that certainly does not mean it would be better. ==Atheists do not hold back science==The very idea of atheists holding back science can be refuted by listing inventions and theories that are vital to the scientific world. Enter one Thomas Edison. He created and invented the Magnetic Iron Ore Separator [5] which is used to build certain objects, such as the Yankee Stadium. Also note that religion had no correlation to this invention. It seems almost irrelevant which religion an inventor is. Note that science would not be advanced without inventions.Continuing on, if atheism in science is on the rise, then science should be slowing down (by your logic,) but it is not. Science is progressing just as fast, if not faster, then it was when atheists did not "control science [6]." Your second claim is exactly the opposite: Atheists propel science. Humans are more advanced than ever, and science might be advancing faster than ever. Seems to me that atheists taking over science didn't hold anything back!I would like to refute now, so I will reserve my remaining arguments for the third and fourth round.~~Rebuttal A: Cures and Lifespan~~My opponent states that after the atheists took over science (which, by the way, isn't exactly true,) we immediately stopped finding cures. However, this is false. We eradicated Smallpox in the late 1970's [7], which was one of the greatest accomplishments of all time. Aside from smallpox, we have made vaccines (in the modern times) for the following:-Tetanus (TDap)-Rinderpest (Considered eradicated in 2011)-Polio (Made in 1952, "eradicated" years later)-Measels (Developed in 1960's, low cases today.)Atheist scientists have actually been on the rise since the Renaissance, and you show no evidence that atheists took over science in the late '60's and late '70's. However, if this is true, your evidence contradicts itself. The life expectancy (since atheists "took over") has risen from 43 years to 75 years in China, a total of 32 years [8]. In 1980, the life expectancy in China was 67. In fact, most lifespans have risen since the '70's when atheist thinking became common in science.~~Rebuttal B: Scientific Revolution and Nobel Prizes~~The opposition asserts that scientific revolution was purely because of religion, without any source to back up his claim. However, not only was the scientific revolution because of both atheists and theists, it also marked the starting point for when atheism really started to pick up steam [9]. Even if the Scientific revolution was not intended to question God, it certainly did. Also, we are not arguing if theists contribute more to science than atheists. This point is almost irrelevant.The Nobel Prize argument is honestly one of the worst I've ever heard. Estonia is an almost unheard of country, and lacks the riches and education that Switzerland and Austria are so rich in. There are countless other variables that my opponent did not consider, which render this argument false and biased. ~~Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments~~The instigator suggests that atheists, in general, hate science and technology. This is simply not true. The cornerstone of atheist belief, Evolution, lies directly on science [10]. Atheists, such as Stephen Hawking, use technology to pursue science. Even he bases his beliefs off of science. It is completely illogical to think atheists hate science and technology when it is technically their belief."Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation." -Stephen HawkingContinuing on, my opponent states that atheists have turned science into "pseudoscience," or science based on false evidence. He states the string theory as his only evidence, though it can be explained by perfectly normal science [12]. My opponent also states that science is now "based on authority," with no evidence whatsoever to back him up. Almost any person can observe science for their own and draw conclusions that differ from what the experts say. For example, science is observable even in a stream:a. The stream is moving.b. There is a reason things move.c. The stream moves for a reason.Going forward, the instigator makes a claim that atheists discourage criticism and scrutiny. Once again, my opponent shows no evidence whatsoever of atheists discouraging questioning. If anything, atheists encourage questioning. Have you not noticed that pretty much every not-proven scientific theory is questioned today? Have you also not noticed that humans began questioning ideas when atheist ideals became popular (i.e Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, etc.?)Discouraging belief without evidence is perfectly sound. It eliminates bogus theories that have literally no scientific evidence backing it up. When there are less hypotheses, it does not necessarily mean there are less goodhypotheses. Good, solid beliefs aren't pulled from intuition, but rather from observations and evidence (for example, gravity [13].) Also, Michael Faraday believed two forces were connected because of his religion. I never said religion isn't some form of evidence (though I do disagree it is strong evidence.)Unfortunately, I am out of characters. I will post more arguments and finish refuting next round. Best of luck to pro on his rebuttals!Sources:[1] http://edtech2.boisestate.edu...[2] http://history.howstuffworks.com...[3] http://atheism.about.com...[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[5] http://www.thomasedison.org...[6] http://undsci.berkeley.edu...[7] http://www.pbs.org...[8] http://data.worldbank.org...[9] http://www.dummies.com...[10] http://ncse.com...[11] http://www.nbcnews.com...[12] http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx...[13] http://web.stanford.edu...