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

This is getting boring, as my opponent can't handle the undeniable historical consensus that the Middle Ages were definitely NOT dark times. I cited valid historical sources, whereas my opponent has cited biased atheist blog sites and fan sites. My opponent cited a biased atheist site that states: In recent decades, medieval scholars have persistently advanced the thesis that the Dark and Middle Ages were not actually dark - that the 1,000-year period stretching from the fall of Rome (roughly 500 AD) to the Renaissance (roughly 1500) was an era of significant intellectual and cultural advance - https://www.theobjectivestandard.com... The site is biased and tries to go against the historical consensus, so it is not really relevant. The author admits that that's what scholars in modern times believe. How can anyone who objectively looks at the historical evidence really believe such garbage as the "Dark Ages"? A time-period when there was more intellectual activity than the Roman Empire, the life expectancy was higher than the Roman Empire's, and practice of autopsy was revived is somehow "dark"? LOL, what about every other time-period in human history? I guess we can label them as "Darker Ages". I already cited valid sources, but you didn't. You cited garbage biased atheist fan sites, and your source (3) is not from a historian but an astronomer. Your source (3) contains obvious errors common in anti-historian/atheist circles. Take for instance his claims about Galen and autopsy. In reality the Christians had revived the practice of autopsy whereas the Romans had a full prohibition on autopsy. Mondino de Liuzzi did an autopsy in 1315. ( "Indeed, very early in the thirteenth century, a religious official, namely, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), ordered the postmortem autopsy of a person whose death was suspicious", Toby Huff. P Prioreschi, Determinants of the revival of dissection of the human body in the Middle Ages", Medical Hypotheses (2001).) How can you deny the historical consensus with garbage like this? It annoys and upsets me. I'll cite sources again (that are from HISTORIANS): Welch, Martin (1993). "Discovering Anglo-Saxon England". University Park, PA: Penn State Press. Freedman, Paul (2004). "Medieval Studies". In Jordan, William Chester. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Verdun, Kathleen (2004). "Medievalism". In Jordan, William Chester. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Snyder, Christopher A. (1998). An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400"600. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. E. Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1996), pp. 59"61, 64. Ronald L. Numbers (2003). "Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs." In: When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Edward Grant: God and Reason in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 2001 I guess this by itself shows the clear ignorance of the atheist and agnostic population, they just really want to believe the intentional LIES in the media. "A popular if uninformed manner of speaking refers to the medieval period as "the dark ages." - Dunphy, Graeme (2007). "Literary Transitions, 1300"1500: From Late Mediaeval to Early Modern" in: The Camden House History of German Literature vol IV: "Early Modern German Literature". Thus we can conclude that the atheist community in general is uninformed of basic history, they watch cartoon shows and stuff in the biased media and think that it's historically accurate, lol. Anyone who disbelieves me can contact any modern day historian from any University and verify that I'm correct. This stuff really annoys and upsets me, why can't atheists handle the truth, that the media is biased and just tells lies thoroughly debunked by historians. Read more here - http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent states a list of "undeniable facts" that are the basis of his argument. However, they are irrelevant to this topic. Everything about astronomy and philosophy is irrelevant to this debate. How is it irrelevant? We're debating about if atheists block human progress and hold back science or not. My argument was that religion creates a NEED to do science, which pushes science forward, without religion there's no NEED. The theory of Evolution (atheist belief) can help explain why bacteria become resistant to treatment, which significantly helps us gauge diseases and make cures. What garbage, in reality you don't need to assume that macro-evolution is true or that radiometric dating is true to make cures. The countries with the highest life expectancies in the year 1960 were Christian countries where almost everyone was a Creationist...how is this so? It's because in reality, macro-evolution and fossil dating have almost no real-world applications, like nothing. You can come up with cures, treatments, etc...without assuming that evolution is true at all. I have shown that atheist scientists have been on the rise since the Scientific Revolution (see source 9 in round 2,) so But you changed your argument to "atheists ideals", which just means that you're saying nothing. The historical evidence clearly shows that the Church encouraged reason, it's nothing like the media portrayal. My argument was that there would be no scientific revolution AT ALL if it wasn't for religion because there's no need to intensely study astronomy and philosophy after gaining food, water, and shelter, which is a very strong argument, but you claimed in your previous statements that it didn't matter. China's life expectancy in 1960 could have been low due to a number of variables. Pollution, war, famine, disease, etc. could have all played a role, and religion could have been irrelevant to the lifespan. Maybe in your fantasy world it had nothing to do with religion, but historians would disagree. China's life expectancy was even lower in the past when they were undisturbed from Westerners and Christians, lol. My opponent obviously fails to understand my Estonia argument. Estonia is a small country at just 1.325 million...Since the two countries are not equally proportional to Estonia, your argument is invalid. Faroe Islands, Saint Lucia, Luxembourg, and Cyprus have population sizes lower than Estonia's, but they have more than 0 Nobel prizes in science. According to the atheists' hypothesis we would predict that the more initially religious countries would have less Nobel prizes in science, not the other way around. All my opponent did here was name one famous theistic science, and claim religion helped him. I honestly don't see how this is relevant to the debate. Edison is relevant because he is atheist, It's relevant, because it's relevant to my claim that having "beliefs without evidence" pushes science forward since there would be more hypotheses. Edison is merely a media figure, a businessman, not really relevant to much. Conclusion: - My opponent insists on denying the historical evidence and consensus that religion caused the scientific revolution - My opponent cites biased sources and atheist fan-sites and blog sites - My opponent hasn't refuted even one point that I've made, and somehow claims that it's irrelevant every time I've proven them wrong - My opponent ignores the undeniable fact that human beings need only food, water, and shelter for survival, and not philosophy and astronomy (where science came from) - My opponent keeps changing the subject away to irrelevant things - My points are all very strong and supported by facts, not speculations All of my points have remained unrefuted, my opponent just ignores them and changes the subject or claims that it's irrelevant. From my earlier post: - We know that science grows when scientists find new ways of empirically testing hypotheses, and we know that atheists are trying to stop people from using technology and without technology it would be very difficult to empirically test hypotheses, therefore atheists holding back science by preventing people from using technology - We know that science grows when scientists go by empirical observations and valid reasoning rather than authority and incredulity, and we know that atheists are trying to turn science into a popularity contest about authority and incredulity alone, thereby holding back science - We know that science grows specifically because of criticism and scrutiny, and we know that atheists are trying to stop people from criticizing and scrutinizing things, thereby holding back science - We know that science grows specifically because of intuition and belief without evidence, and we know that atheists are trying to stop people from having any beliefs without evidence, thereby holding back science - We know that there is no NEED to study science that religion creates a NEED to study science - We know that all the historical evidence and data matches my hypothesis perfectly, that indeed atheists block human progress and hold back science Those were my original points, they are all VERY STRONG arguments that support my statement that atheists block human progress, hold back science, and threaten mankind. If atheists hadn't taken over science, science would be growing out of control. We could've used science and technology to end all world problems and cure all negative health conditions, but as long as atheists are around, they'll always be the main block to scientific progress. My opponent just keeps changing the subject. I'm more certain than ever that I'm right.