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

His rebuttals are in a conclusion format, so it will be a little unusual to refute. I thank the readers for reading this long debate so far, and I thank my opponent for sticking around! !==My opponent's refuted arguments==This section will be to show where I refuted my opponent's points (taken from his list in the last round. ) Everything is respective (first point is first rebuttal, etc. )-Refuted in fourth round (Irrelevant points and Guidelines, Religion causes Need for Science. )-Refuted in second round (Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments)-Refuted in second round (Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments)-Refuted in second round (Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments)-Refuted in third round (Michael Faraday)In conclusion, we see all of my opponent's main points refuted, meaning he can not win the debate. Note that the BoP rests solely on pro, and he does not have any unrefuted arguments to fulfill his BoP. Furthermore, most of these points were refuted in the second round, and yet he kept going at them. This means most of my opponent's arguments rested on already refuted arguments. ==My opponent's data==Before we dive into this point, I would like to point out that my opponent lists a ton of data without any sources whatsoever. I will treat these points like arguments. ALL DATA/NUMBERS THAT I USED HAVE BEEN SOURCED IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS OF DEBATE. ==Estonia and Religious Populations==My opponent keeps going at the Estonia argument, even though it has already been refuted. Estonia has a small population (Switzerland has a larger one), Estonia does not have the educational advantages that the Faroe Islands have, and certainly not the riches that Luxembourg has. Thus, it is reasonable that Estonia would not produce a student who would win a Nobel Prize. Religion may have nothing to do with the number of Nobel Prizes won by country. My opponent also keeps going at the atheist population argument. First, I would like to say that there is no pre-science civilization in human history that decided to study astronomy because. .. well, this is self-explanatory. There was no science (pre-science), and they did not have the materials and education we have today. Second, I have shown that China had a lower life expectancy due to a number of variables (war, disease, etc. ) However, from 1960-1980, China experienced a huge boost in life expectancy. This was before Christianity came along. Whether or not the atheists I mentioned came from a religious country is not relevant. The BoP is only and only whether or not atheist contributed something to science. Nowhere does it say that I must prove religion played a role in science. I have refuted my opponent's BoP by the logic below:a. Stephen Hawking has contributed something to science. b. Stephen Hawking is an atheist. c. At least one atheist has contributed something to science. Before I move on to the next point, I would like to refute the life expectancy argument. First off, life expectancy has risen by about +13.1 years from 1960-2000, which is close to the growth from 1900-1960 (on balance. ) We have also cut down on diseases (highlighted by the eradication of Smallpox) since the atheists took over, contrary to what my opponent has said. I have also pointed out that science is growing faster than ever (see third round. )==Beliefs without Evidence==This point brought up by my opponent is simply incorrect. Science grew because of observations and ideals, not because of simple shots out of the blue. I evidenced this through Isaac Newton and the discovery of Pluto, both of which have remained unrefuted. In fact, history shows us that important pieces of science grew via observations. .. not because of beliefs without evidence. The Michael Faraday argument has been refuted. Plus, it is only one example, whereas my assertion has many, many examples. The argument that atheists discourage people from criticizing and scrutinizing has been refuted, and I have shown that atheist beliefs actually stem up from questioning, and they simply discourage unsupported beliefs. This is kind of how Christians discourage Evolution, polytheism, atheism, etc. The string theory argument has also been refuted (see third round and second round. )Oh, and if atheists wanted to live in the stone age, there would be no atheist scientists, but there are. Also, atheists would not exist in any big company that threatens the environment, but they do. This argument has been refuted throughout the debate, and it is simply incorrect. In conclusion, all of pro's data, evidence, and arguments have been refuted. Thus, he has not fulfilled his BoP and can't win this debate. ==My opponent's rebuttals=This section will be refuting my opponent's rebuttals. Note that a lot of my opponent's rebuttals have already been covered earlier in the debate, so they will not be discussed fully. ==BoP and Historical Stuff ==My opponent states that I wrongfully stated the BoP. I stated that we were debating whether or not atheists had anything to contribute to science. This was the three assertions summed up. If atheists contributed something to science, they do not hold back the human race, block scientific progress, or pose the greatest threat to science as a whole. Now, my opponent keeps using the Historical Consensus without any evidence whatsoever. Atheist ideals sparked the Renaissance, not the Scientific Revolution (pardon me if I made that mistake. ) After the Bubonic Plague, people began questioning the Catholic Church and their beliefs in God. These are examples of what atheists both think and do. After the Catholic Church lost some power, ancient art and science was discovered. So, atheist ideals and atheists at least somewhat contributed to the Renaissance. Continuing on, I never stated that the Scientific Revolution could have occurred without religion. My opponent is simply over-emphasizing my statement that atheists and atheist ideals helped sparked the Renaissance. My opponent's argument that religion emphasized the Scientific Revolution is irrelevant, which was explained in the fourth round. Also, I have stated and showed over and over again that my sources are not biased. My opponent simply ignores this. Christianity did not have a lot to do with the creation of science. Science has been around forever, even if it has only recently reached a significant stage. Christianity arose at around 0 A. D, whereas science was visible (though not significant) thousands of years before. In fact, if Evolution is true (it most likely is) then science was visible even when fire was discovered, though it was not advanced science in any way. Christianity was not the starting point of science. ==Modern Stuff==My opponent claims that I have ignored the life expectancy of China, but I have not. It was discussed in the third, fourth, and fifth round. My opponent just simply does not see it. Consider this point dropped. Make the same conclusion about the Estonia argument, as I have refuted it in all rounds (except the first. )Thomas Edison was both an inventor and a scientist. One can not invent without at least some sort of science behind the invention. Take the lightbulb (which he didn't invent, but rather dramatically improved. ) This improvement/invention could not have been reached without the reasoning that light can be created from electricity, which is simple science. Yes, Edison was an inventor, but he was also a scientist. Next, my opponent ignores that Evolution, in some way, creates a need to do science. He did not refute that Evolution causes research in fossils, biological life, and rocks. Evolution is a whole separate theory than Creationism. Evolution was not the result of Creationism, but rather Darwin's research and observations. To say Creationism caused Evolution is simply incorrect from any angle you look at it. All of my main points remain unrefuted. ==Pro's Dropped Points==-Atheist thinking is much more scientific than theist thinking-Science is actually advancing faster than ever-Eradication of smallpox (1980's: during atheist science)-That Chinese lifespan increased dramatically from 1960-80, despite Christianity only becoming popular in 1989 [15]. -Atheist ideals were present during Renaissance (regardless of how many atheists there were)-That the Scientific Revolution sparked rise in atheist ideas-That many great scientific minds are atheist minds-Atheist beliefs rely on science-The science of Stephen Hawking (Rebuttal C, paragraph 2)-My intuition rebuttal -Chinese life expectancy experienced significant growth before Christian influence-Evolution creates a need for science (biology, fossils, etc. )-A great number of scientific thinkers are atheist, and science is growing faster than ever-Critical thinkers lose their faith in God-Albert Einstein General Relativity statement-Estonia does not compare to Nobel-winning countries, such as Faroe Islands-Alan Turing argument (pioneer of computer science)-If atheist contributes something to science, they do not "hold back science. "All of these points were dropped by pro. Since all of these points negate the resolution, con can not win. ==Conclusion==In conclusion, we see that my opponent has not fulfilled his BoP at all. He has not proven that atheists hold back science, block human progress, or pose the greatest threat to science as a whole. He has dropped various points of mine that all negate the BoP. Thus, my opponent loses this debate due to failure to uphold the BoP. The resolution is negated.