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

Well, I find your arguments to be ridiculous and typical in anti-science/atheist circles. I took a "History of Science" course in college, of course I would know much more about the history of science than most atheists. Let me teach you some stuff, just like how Jesuit priest astronomers taught the Chinese that the Earth was round. 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]. But the Christians did not believe in Zeus, or the fire-god, or water-god, or things like that, they instead believed one Creator above all, that those type of gods were false, and that there were natural laws that God set out behind everything. Atheists typically deny all religious explanations, and thus go in search of answers to the greatest questions in the universe themselves....If it wasn't for atheists questioning religion, the Renaissance would not have happened. Science, today, is here because of atheists. LOL! What junk. The historical consensus is that religion directly caused the scientific revolution, not the other way around. The media portrayal of the Middle Ages as a "dark age of religious superstition" has been thoroughly debunked by historians. You can contact any historian or cite any valid historical source if you disagree. In reality the Church had been responsible for abolishing the practice of superstitions, since the Church viewed "dealings in magic and divination" as a heresy, they sponsored "natural philosophy" because the Bible had mentioned "natural laws" and the "laws of nature". This is why Newton and the others were known as "natural philosophers". The ones that really believed in magic were the pre-Christian Europeans the people of other religions. The historical evidence clearly shows that the Church strongly encouraged reason, contrary to the lies in the media. It was because of the Church and RELIGION that the scientific revolution occurred, not the other way around. How do I reason so? From the following undeniable facts: - It's impossible for any civilization to start off with the scientific method, Newtonian physics, and higher mathematics - The scientific method comes from intensely studying philosophy (it's a form of logical empiricism) - Newton physics and higher mathematics comes from intensely studying astronomy (it's an advanced astronomical model) - Human beings need only food, water, and shelter for survival, not astronomy and philosophy - Without religion, there would be absolutely no need to intensely study astronomy and philosophy - There aren't any examples of any pre-Modern civilization in all of human history that decided to intensely study philosophy and astronomy without a religion causing them to - The Church was the biggest sponsor of astronomy and "natural philosophy", this is because the Church NEEDed calendars and the Bible encouraged people to understand the laws of nature (as opposed to magic) - Everything that led up to the scientific revolution (intensely studying astronomy and philosophy) would've been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists Undeniable facts! Sources: 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. Atheists put a whole new concept and thinking into science after the middle ages [3], and shed light on how the universe might work. This is just not true as the historical evidence shows. Correlation isn't causation, the Middle Ages had all types of advances that directly led up to the scientific revolution. If atheists had initially ran things we can be nearly 100% certain that most likely they would've thought "Now that we have food, water, and shelter, why should we waste time intensely studying philosophy and astronomy (what caused the scientific revolution)? It's nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time". This is obvious from the historical evidence. In fact, a great many of modern famous scientists do not believe in a God. Yeah, there are lots of atheist scientists who live in extremely religious countries, if they had lived in initially atheist countries they would still be in the near stone age days. This is because religion creates a NEED to do science. Also Computer Science comes from Charles Babbage. 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. Macro-evolution and fossil dating have very very very few real-world applications for anything, if you wanted to you could still do almost all of science without believing in those things. Right now atheist scientists are strongly discouraging people from questioning, scrutinizing, or criticizing evolution, a typical ant-science stance holding back science. The scientific evidence supporting evolution is very weak in comparison to the evidence supporting General Relativity, yet atheists don't have any issue with people questioning GR do they? How foolish. 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...Also note that religion had no correlation to this invention. How ridiculous, Edison is nothing compared to Faraday or Maxwell as any electrical engineer knows. It's been proven that Faraday's innovations came specifically BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, this has been suppressed by the atheist-controlled media. Maxwell's Equations is like the biggest thing in all of science history (even bigger than GR)! Without Faraday's religion all innovations made because of electrical technology and Maxwell's Equations would not probably not exist, we can be certain of this. Sources: T Martin, Faraday (London, 1934). L Pearce Williams, Michael Faraday : A biography (London-New York, 1965). -Tetanus (TDap) -Rinderpest (Considered eradicated in 2011) -Polio (Made in 1952, "eradicated" years later) -Measels (Developed in 1960's, low cases today.) LOL everything you listed is from the early-to-mid 1970s or earlier just as I said. The Tetanus vaccine is from 1924. The Rinderpest vaccine is from Walter Plowright's work is from the 1950s-1960s. Sources: http://www.cdc.gov... , https://www.worldfoodprize.org... Atheist scientists have actually been on the rise since the Renaissance... 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. Historians have already debunked the junk you're talking about with the Renaissance, so I'm not going to repeat myself about that. China's life expectancy in the year 1960 was 43, only a tiny bit higher than Christian Europe's life expectancy in the Middle Ages, but that was like a thousand years ago, lol. Christian Europe was more developed than China since the Middle Ages! Back in the year 1960 most European and Western nations were very religious , and the Chinese nearly entirely atheistic. China's life expectancy thoroughly refutes the atheists' hypothesis "that without religion (specifically Christianity) science and technology would be ahead". Based on that hypothesis we would've predicted the initially religious Christian countries to be more backward, and the initially atheistic countries to be ahead, so the data thoroughly falsifies that hypothesis beyond imagination. In recent times, after China has been disturbed by Westerners and Christianity indeed the life expectancy has gone up there. But according to the atheists it shouldn't be so, it should be opposite, lol. China is now in it's way towards being the most Christian nation in the world - http://www.telegraph.co.uk... With Christianity they'll probably get ahead. The life expectancy has only grown about 7-10 years or so since the 1960s (after atheists took over), so slowly! The opposition asserts that scientific revolution was purely because of religion, without any source to back up his claim. Sorry you're wrong, every modern day historical source clearly shows that religion DIRECTLY CAUSED the scientific revolution. I already cited sources, if you disagree cite VALID sources. 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. I guess someone's mad that I've proven them wrong. According to multiple sources Estonia is the most atheistic country, so according to the atheists' hypothesis we would expect them to have the most Nobel prizes per capita, and be the most developed in Europe, instead it's the opposite. Running out of characters, but the String Theory was only considered as science since atheists took over, since they are pseudo-scientists. Then you basically agreed with my other points, you can't generate many hypotheses if you have no beliefs without evidence. So my points remain unrefuted! Wish I had more characters! Looks like it's over...