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

Unfortunately I only have 10,000 characters to use and this is round 5, I'd first like to remind the audience of my arguments used to support my assertion that atheists block human progress, hold back science, and threaten mankind, then with the rest of the characters left I'll attempt to refute Con's previous arguments. Here are reasons that I've given to support my assertion that atheists block human progress, hold back science, and threaten mankind: - Atheism and non-religion eliminates any NEED to do science, since the scientific revolution came from intensely studying philosophy and astronomy (the scientific method is a form of logical empiricism that comes from intensely studying philosophy, Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model that comes from intensely studying astronomy) and humans only need food, water, and shelter for survival, not philosophy or astronomy, without religion there's no NEED to do science - Atheists discourage "belief without evidence" and intuition, it's VERY difficult to generate new hypotheses without beliefs without evidence, if no one had any "beliefs without evidence" we would expect science to grow VERY slowly - Atheists discourage criticism and scrutiny, but we know that science grows specifically because of criticism and scrutiny - Atheists are trying to turn science into a popularity contest where authority and incredulity matters more than empirical observations and valid reasoning, this means "science" is turning into pseudoscience now - Atheists are discouraging people from using technology, but science grows specifically because of technology (finding ways to empirically test hypotheses using technology) Here's the data I provided to support my assertions: - The initially atheist countries like China were in the near stone age days just a few decades ago when they were undisturbed from Christianity and Westerners, in the year 1960 China's life expectancy was 43 whereas Switzerland's (one of the most religious Western countries) was 71 in 1960 - There is no example of any pre-science civilization in all of human history that decided to intensely study astronomy and philosophy after gaining food, water, and shelter without a religion causing them to - The atheist scientists Con mentions are from religious or initially religious countries not atheist or initially atheist countries, because religion creates a NEED to do science - Estonia (the most atheistic country) has 0 Nobel prizes, Switzerland and Austria (the 1st and 2nd most religious Western countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita (among nations with a population > 1 million) - History shows us that science grew specifically because of "beliefs without evidence" (for generating new hypotheses), an example I gave was with Faraday's then ridiculous belief that magnetism and light were linked (motivated by his religion) which caused Maxwell's Equations (perhaps the biggest thing in science history!) - Atheists discourage people from criticizing and scrutinizing beliefs that they personally agree with (like evolution) as well as anything else, but not on the basis of whether or not the criticism is valid, on the basis of authority and incredulity - Only after atheists took over science did the "String Theory" become known as science, whenever you question atheist scientists as to how the String Theory is science even though it matches the definition of pseudoscience, their responses are only about authority and incredulity, this means modern science is just about authority and incredulity, not empirical observations and valid reasoning - Atheist environmentalists and global warming supporters are trying to stop people from using science and technology, they just want to live backwards with trees and grass - After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, physics became stuck with empirically untestable hypotheses, science is turning into pseudoscience, and technology started growing slower (the life expectancy has grown only around 7-10 years or so since 1960, which was more than 50 years ago!) So we can see that all of the historical and scientific evidence and data we have matches my hypotheses and statements perfectly. People have to realize the real serious threat that atheists pose to society, atheists have always been the main threat to science. I predict that in the future if society becomes atheistic or non-religious enough, humans will revert to the state of an animal, just focusing on survival like other animals. Atheists might try to exterminate science viewing it as a waste of time or even stop people from being literate (you don't need to be literate for basic survival). Now to refute as many of Con's statements as possible: - Con claims it's irrelevant that religion creates a NEED to do science, but how is it irrelevant? It's one of my points that without religion there's no NEED to study science, so science would grow slower or not grow at all without a NEED to study it - Con claims that we are debating about "whether or not atheists contribute anything to science" but we aren't, we're debating about whether or not "atheists block human progress, hold back science, and threaten mankind" - Con can't handle the undeniable historical consensus that religion in the Middle Ages indeed caused the scientific revolution, he cites biased sources by atheists not accepted by historians, this is because he prefers to use his biases and emotions rather than to objectively evaluate the facts, I already cited valid historical sources, which Con claims that he cannot view, this is just NORMAL history, anyone can ask any unbiased history professor or modern day historian about it - Con claims that evolution creates a need to study science, but this is not true, it was Creationism that created a need to study evolution, the people who debunk Creationism are doing it because of religion - Con claims that somehow "atheists ideals" sparked the scientific revolution, but then claims that my point that religion sparked the scientific revolution is irrelevant (since religion created a need to study philosophy and astronomy and since the scientific method and Newtonian physics came from studying philosophy and astronomy) - Con claims that the scientific revolution could have occurred without religion, even though in all of pre-science history not one civilization decided to intensely study astronomy and philosophy without a religion causing them to, so the historical evidence falsifies Con's hypothesis - Con ignores the fact that all of the atheist scientists he mentions are from extremely religious countries, why is that? Because religion creates a NEED to do science - Con claims that Christianity had nothing to do with the creation of science, which of course is a claim thoroughly debunked by historians, he prefers to use his emotions and biases rather than looking at the objective facts (like the fact the Christians sponsored "natural philosophy", abolished the practice of magic, didn't believe in things like the sun god, moon god, etc...) - Con ignores the fact that only very recently in history has China's life expectancy gone above 43, using Con's hypothesis we would predict that the initially atheist countries would be more developed with more Nobel prizes in science, instead the historical evidence shows the opposite - Con ignores the fact that Edison was not a scientist but an engineer, and from an extremely religious country, that Edison was a businessman, he bought patents, and his "team" invented things, and it was the science from Faraday and Maxwell that made Edison's inventions possible - Con hasn't refuted any of my claims connected to how atheist block human progress, hold back science, and threaten mankind, instead Con changes the subject and ignores basic history and the facts because of his biases and emotions If Con was correct we would expect China to have started off more developed than the religious Western countries, instead Christian Europe was more developed than China since the Middle Ages, only very recently in history has China's life expectancy gone above Europe's in the Middle Ages, lol. If Con was correct we would expect the atheist countries like Estonia and China to have the most Nobel prizes in science per capita, instead Estonia has 0 Nobel prizes in science, and China has proportionally the lowest Nobel prizes in science per capita. If Con was correct we would expect the atheist scientists who contribute anything to be from initially atheist countries, not from extremely religious countries or countries that were extremely religious just a few decades ago. All of the historical and scientific evidence support my assertions perfectly. I know that atheists are biased people so they cannot handle the truth because of their emotions and biases. The same progress that would take atheist scientists maybe a 1,000 years or so would only take Theists around 20-30 years to do. I've personally attempted to find cures and treatments, it's really not that complicated, things have grown extremely slowly since the 1960s specifically because of the atheists. If we are to be completely honest and objective with ourselves we can be 100% certain to the highest extent that: Atheists block human progress, hold back science, and threaten mankind. The reason why people think differently is just because of the biased media and not objectively evaluating the facts. Everything I've said about how atheists block human progress has been unrefuted and supported by undeniable facts. People have to realize what atheists are trying to do to society, the threat, throwing us into the stone age like animals. Conclusion: I hope that everyone enjoyed this debate and votes based on an objective evaluation of the facts rather than what their emotions or biases tell them