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

Since irrelevant topics seem to be such a hot topic in this debate, I'm going to address the irrelevant points right away, and explain why they are irrelevant. If my opponent does not show why EVERY one of these points are relevant, then they remain irrelevant. ==Irrelevant Points and Guidelines==-Philosophy and astronomy: These are irrelevant to this debate because they do not follow any of the three points that my opponent has to prove. We are debating whether or not atheists contribute anything to science, and stating something that is possibly caused by religion does not negate the BoP in any manner. -That religion creates a need for science: Even if religion creates a need for science, it does not matter. Science is here now, and we are debating whether or not atheists are developing it or hold it back. Whether or not religion was the cause of science does not pose a meaningful impact on this debate. My argument that atheist ideals created science will be discussed later. Note that this is all that I said was irrelevant. My opponent's claim that I am dismissing everything as irrelevant is not true. Next, the conduct of my opponent is really making this debate lack a professional manner. I ask him to refrain from using phrases like "lol. " Voters, please note this during the conduct section of your vote. Also note I can not view most of my opponent's sources, whereas you can view mine. Note that in the source section of the voting. Now, let's get debating! ==Middle Ages==My opponent starts off the debate by quickly attacking my source, and dismissing it as "a garbage, atheist-based fan site. " However, my source uses studies and other sources in the book, which makes it a reliable source. Furthermore, my source states what medieval scientists think, but then goes on to refute it,"Stark's errors are rampant and across the board. .. indeed, will be shown, that Stark's claims are historically false and philosophically impossible [1]. "My opponent also fails to see that this is a book, and not an article, written by Andrew Bernstein, who holds a PhD from the Graduate School of the City University of New York. This makes him quite reliable, and has a much higher level education than most people do. .. if he's not reliable, you are really unreliable. Also, my third source is from a college professor in a lecture. He looks at both sides, and explains evidence for both sides of my argument. I ask my opponent to name the excerpt from the article that he is critiquing, as I cannot find it. However, this article is certainly not garbage. It looks over evidence, and creates an article containing facts on both sides, by a college professor who must be reliable (if he was hired. ) I have no idea where you got that astronomer idea from. My opponent goes on to name a bunch of different sources that I can not view. How am I supposed to assume they are reliable if I can not view them? My opponent continues to go on to say that every modern day historian from any university agrees with his claim, even though I cited a source that disproved that very claim. After attacking my sources, he says "read more here-" and then cites a wikipedia article. Note this in the source category of your voting. ==Religion Causes Need for Science==My opponent continues to aggressively assert that religion is the only cause for science. This is false. Religion doesn't completely create a need for science. For example, computer technology, the study of organisms, or even disease study are not caused by religion at all. The study of organisms can be influenced by evolution (to further increase evidence [2],) disease study is caused by the curiosity of living longer and surviving, and computer technology is due to the burn to make our lives better. "Studying science will broaden your understanding of the world around you, may allow you to influence and develop accepted scientific knowledge, and will give you the skills needed to approach most matters in a reasoned and analytical manner. " -Dr. Zac Sloman, Gatsby Business-Science Fellow, Nottingham [3]. Continuing on, I have shown that evolution can increase the need to study fossils, rocks, and biosystems. Evolution would never have been popular and possible without atheist support. Since evolution has had such a big impact on science and beliefs [4], that means atheists contribute to science in a great manner. In fact, evolution has caused all types of people- theists, atheists- to study evidence and come to a scientific conclusion for themselves. Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, it has sparked debates and scientific investigations. ==Scientific Revolution==My opponent, right off the bat, tries to point out a change in my argument to take me down. The change from "atheist" to "atheist ideals" is not too much of a change, since atheist ideals imply some form of atheist, and atheist ideals could not exist without atheists. My opponent has yet to refute my arguments concerning atheist ideals. The scientific revolution could have been possible without religion; we can never know for sure. I have already stated that atheists (such as Alan) have created technology and studied science out of curiosity and wanting to make the world a better place. Science is the result of observations and inventions, not a sudden need to study something out of the blue. For example, the discovery of Pluto was due to observations and to solve the position of Uranus [5]. Thus, it is possible, if not probable, that atheists would've studied science had the chance arisen at the beginning. You fail to refute that Christianity does not pop up until the year 0, which means Christianity (the religion you've based your whole argument on) had nothing to do with the creation of science. ==Nobel Prize Argument and China==My opponent continues to pursue the flawed Nobel Prize argument. My point still stands that Estonia has less health and educational benefits than Switzerland, and definitely less than the Faroe Islands [6]. And Luxembourg is one of the richest locations in the world. .. so you basically just proved my point. To cut a long argument short, my opponent is ignoring the other variables that can help one win a Nobel Prize in science. My opponent also pursues the flawed China argument, completely ignoring my point that Christianity only became popular in China in 1989, though the highest advancement in lifespan was from 1960-80 (see round 3 arguments, sources,) when Christianity was not seen as a common religion. My opponent dismisses the possible variables that could decrease a lifespan with the simple quote "historians would disagree," which, without evidence, is meaningless. I consider this point dropped by my opponent for now. In the 1960's, there was war, an increase in population density, The Chinese stock wasn't good, etc [7]. There are many variables that contributed to the low lifespan back then, and the high lifespan today. To assert that it is because of one thing (religion) is absolutely absurd. My opponent also suggests Edison, one of the greatest scientists of all time [8], is just a media figure. Common knowledge says he is not, as he found a way to give us a cheap source of light and create numerous inventions. You only state one "belief without evidence," whereas I have shown many "beliefs via observations and evidences. " ==Conclusion==Since I still have a reasonable amount of space left, I would like to address the "dropped points" that my opponent mentioned. Responses are respective to the order of my opposition's conclusion. -I have stated atheist ideals led up to Scientific Revolution (Renaissance)-I have asserted and defended my sources, and shown they are reliable-I have refuted numerous points. .. just read my entire above argument-Addressed in this round (in Scientific Revolution rebuttal)-I said two subjects were irrelevant to this debate (see top of my argument) and I still refuted them-I can't view your sources, plus you constantly say "evidence will show" without evidence or source anywhere near your claim. My opponent has done absolutely nothing to assert his BoP. Below are some dropped points by my opponent (these are dropped from third round; see points dropped from second round at bottom of third round):-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. "Sources: [1] . https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...[2] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[3] . http://www.ntu.ac.uk...[4] . http://www.icr.org...[5] . http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...[6] . http://www.faroeislands.fo...[7] . http://www.china-profile.com...[8] . http://www.themarkofaleader.com...