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

I would like to start off by saying my opponent is swaying away from the BoP. He tries to show that the scientific revolution was due to theists, which is actually irrelevant to this debate. We are debating whether atheists contribute anything to science. Nowhere does it say that atheists have contributed more to science than theists. So basically, most of my opponents "rebuttals" are irrelevant to this debate.Second, I would like to discuss the conduct of this debate. My opponent is not debating in a professional manner, as he uses phrases like "LOL" and "let me teach you some stuff." His ego is ruining the flow of the debate, and thus, conduct should go to me (so far.)Also note that my opponent uses only a few sources that I can actually view (two in showing when vaccinations were created) and states he has all kinds of evidence to back up his claims. Since he has very little evidence, my sources defeat his so far in both quantity and quality. Enough about the framework, let's get debating!*Note some of the sources may be mixed up. Sorry about that.==Atheist Ideals==My opponent starts off the debate by claiming atheist ideals were not present in the creation of science. He states Christians denied polytheistic beliefs. However, Christianity did not arise until around 0 A.D, which is long after polytheistic beliefs were formed. Second, denying a god or gods is atheistic ideals, which means atheists contributed to the creation of science, even if it was just their ideals. Second, the Scientific Revolution is not the same as the Renaissance, so using the Scientific Revolution to refute the Renaissance does not work. The Middle Ages were Dark Times, unlike my opponent states [1]. Also, my opponent states, without any evidence, that the media is wrongly portraying the Dark Ages. He also uses phrases like "evidence will show" without any evidence.My opponent goes on to assume that I am talking that atheists solely brought on the Renaissance. However, this is false. I stated that atheists ideals, such as questioning beliefs and seeking new theories [2], helped spark the Renaissance. The Scientific Revolution was largely due to the Renaissance, which could not have happened without some form of atheists ideals. The effects of religion on the Scientific Revolution can be debated [3].==My opponent's astronomy arguments==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. Once again, we are not debating whether or not religion is more important to science than atheists, We're debating whether or not atheists have anything to offer science. Thus, all of his "undeniable facts" are irrelevant to this debate. Continuing on, my opponent says that atheist concept and thinking did not pose any effect into how the universe might work. My opponent bases this off of no evidence whatsoever. If atheists ran things, there is no evidence that they would not want to use science. In fact, current evidence shows that a great number of scientific thinkers are atheistic [4] and there is no evidence that atheists would not want to figure out how the universe works. Continuing on, I would like to bring up the fact that many critical thinkers lose their faith in God [5]. This means two things: first, a lot of influential critical thinkers today are atheists. Second, atheist minds contribute heavily to science today. Whether or not these minds were influenced by religion is irrelevant, as atheists are atheists regardless of what inspired them to start science.==Evolution==Right off the bat, my opponent concedes that Evolution has at least one real world application by saying "...very very very few real-world applications for anything." Evolution helps scientists reason how the universe and world might have been created, which sparks new ideas which help the advancement of science. Also, I could say the same thing for Creationism here: "It has very very very few real-world applications for anything."The evidence supporting Evolution is so great, that 97% of the scientists who study the evidence believe in some form of Evolution [12]. The theory of Evolution even helps the theory of Creationism. Evolution could explain our rapid advancement since we were placed on the Earth about 6,000 years ago, though I do not believe creationism happened.The theory of Evolution (atheist belief) can help explain why bacteria become resistant to treatment, which significantly helps us gauge diseases and make cures. Regardless of whether Evolution is true or not, the basis of it helps us with real-world problems. Since Evolution was an atheist creation, that means atheist help science, which negates the BoP.P.S: General Relativity was created in early 1900's by Albert Einstein... who didn't necessarily believe in God [13][14]. ==Vaccines and Nobel Prizes==I have shown that atheist scientists have been on the rise since the Scientific Revolution (see source 9 in round 2,) so my opponents' assertion that atheist took over science in 1970 has very little impact on my argument. The Tetanus Vaccine was developed in 1924, but has had numerous improvements and effects added to it [6]. Same goes for all of the other vaccines that I listed. 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. You also state life expectancy has grown ten years since the 1960's... which isn't necessarily slow [7]. Also, only 5% of Chinese are Christians [15.] 1910-1960 (50 years:) 48.3->65.6 (+17.3 years.)1960-2010 (50 years:) 65.6->78.7 (+13.1 years.)The life expectancy has still gone up by quite a fast rate, even if it looks slower on paper. However, it is significantly easier to go from 30-40 years of life expectancy than to go from 60-70 years, so the two lifespans are actually quite slow. Not to mention that from 1400-1900 (the theistic science you so heavily lauded) the lifespan only went from 25->40 years [8]. Also, India had a lower life expectancy than China, and was theistic [10].My opponent obviously fails to understand my Estonia argument. Estonia is a small country at just 1.325 million [9]. This means economic, educational, and health benefits that Switzerland (with a population of 8 million) would have. Thus, it stands to reason there would be less Nobel Prizes. Austria also has 8.5 million people, about 6.5-7x what Estonia has. Since the two countries are not equally proportional to Estonia, your argument is invalid. ==Michael Faraday==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, and that follows the BoP of this debate. Maxwell was famous, yes, but Edison contributed something significant to science too. If Edison, an atheist, contributed something to science, that proves that "atheists do not hold back science."Alan Turing contributed more to science than Charles Babbage:"Alan Turing was an English mathematician, wartime code-breaker and pioneer of computer science [11]." Even if Babbage invented computer science, Alan Turning contributed greatly to it, which proves my point that atheists do not hold back science, or block human progress. ==Conclusion==In conclusion, I have fully negated my opponent's points or showed they were irrelevant to this debate. My opponent has failed to refute a great number of my arguments, but rather focused on a few sentences... some of which weren't even significant to this debate. Also, my opponent states my sources are invalid. They all work and are all reliable. Below are 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 rebuttalTo wrap up, my opponent has not refuted a lot of my points which are crucial to the BoP. He has still not provided evidence for most claims (i.e atheist science is from 1960-present.)As of now, the resolution is negated. My opponent has done nothing to prove his BoP; he only tried to prove that theists have a bigger impact on science than atheists.[1] https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...[2] http://www.positiveatheism.org...[3] http://www.astro.umd.edu... (See bottom.)[4] http://www.thebestschools.org... [5] http://www.scientificamerican.com...[6] http://www.immunizationinfo.org...[7] http://demog.berkeley.edu...[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[9] http://demog.berkeley.edu...[10] http://adaniel.tripod.com...[11] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[12] http://www.people-press.org...[13] http://www.space.com...[14] http://www.skeptically.org...[15] http://www.chinahighlights.com...