The Instigator
itsnobody
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,573 times Debate No: 65518
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (50)
Votes (4)

 

itsnobody

Pro

Although I can't be certain of everything, I can be 100% certain that atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the greatest threat to science (and mankind as a whole).

My position is pro/for (obviously). I'm hoping that someone (preferably a non-Theist) accepts the challenge.

First round - Introductions/Clarifications
Rest of the rounds - Arguments/Rebuttals
dtaylor971

Con

This should be quite fun. I'm agnostic, so it's always a present to me to argue for both the theism side and the atheism side. Stir the pot up a little!

==Framework==

In this debate, we will be arguing three topics. The first is that atheists block human progress, the second is that they hold back science, and the third is that they pose the greatest threat to science. The BoP is on pro. If he fails to prove ALL three of these topics, he automatically loses the argument points.

Since there were no guidelines set in place by pro, that means that I can do them. The basis of this debate will rely on not religion, but rather what atheists contribute to the science world. Arguments like "atheists have the wrong belief" cannot be proven and is not yet proven, so that argument can NOT be used in this debate.

Pro also asserts he is 100% sure that his BoP is correct. That means that even if pro's stance is deemed most likely correct, he does not win. He must prove, beyond doubt, that his assertion is correct. He also says that atheists pose the greatest threat to mankind- which means he now has four assertions to prove.

So, to cap it off, here is what pro MUST do to stand a chance at winning this debate:

•Prove atheists are greatest threat to science
•Prove atheists block human progress
•Prove that atheists have held back science more than they have contributed to it
•Prove that atheists are the greatest threat to mankind
•Prove ALL of these assertions beyond any doubt.

I've seen a lot of very tough challenges, and accepted a few myself, but wow.

==Terms==

Atheists will be defined as one who does not believe in any God.

Every field of science may be used during this debate (chemistry, laws, etc.)

Humans will be defined as the species Homo Sapiens that reside on Earth.

That is all. I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate!



Debate Round No. 1
itsnobody

Pro

Well first of all, I disagree with your premises. I didn't set any guidelines, so anything goes, including arguments connected to religion.

Secondly, I only made three assertions, that fourth one is something that you made.

Thirdly, these three assertions overlap, and are almost like saying the same things.

A few points to be made first:

- After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early-to-mid 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

Some atheists will try to trick people into thinking that "without religion (specifically Christianity) science would be ahead", but the historical evidence shows us the opposite:

Life Expectancy in the year 1960 (just a few decades ago):
Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Western country): 71
China (an atheist country undisturbed from Christianity): 43

The truth hurts. Someone living in Europe during the Middle Ages might have lived longer than someone living in China in the year 1960! That's really what a world without religion would be like.

- The historical consensus clearly shows that the scientific revolution occurred ONLY because of religion, everything that led up to the scientific revolution would've been viewed to atheists as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists

- 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 size above 1 million)

Now arguments to support my assertion that "atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the greatest threat to science":

- Atheists in general hate science and technology, viewing it as artificial and unnatural, and prefer living in the stone age with grass and trees for reasons of pollution, global warming, etc...they're trying to stop people from using technology and science

- Atheists who now run science are trying to turn science into pseudoscience, something about authority and incredulity, rather than something about empirical observations and valid reasoning (an example is the String Theory which only was known as "science" after atheists took over but would've been viewed as pseudoscience normally).

Atheists are trying to re-define the definition of science to "whatever authority figures claim is science" instead of "what matches a certain criteria to be science", so science is now nearly 100% just about authority alone, going backwards, turning into pseudoscience!

What a great danger the atheist community poses to science.

- Atheists who now run science strongly discourage criticism and scrutiny, which use to be viewed as an extremely important principle in science, but isn't anymore, what's viewed as important is authority and incredulity, the reason why criticism and scrutiny use to be an important principle in science is because if something really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so the more people criticize the closer we come towards the truth

- Atheists discourage intuition, and belief without evidence, but the historical evidence clearly shows that science grew specifically because of beliefs without evidence (for generating hypotheses). The less hypotheses there are, the less possibility of scientific growth there is. If you don't have any beliefs without evidence it's going to be really really hard to generate hypotheses.

An example of this can be seen with Michael Faraday, who only because of his religion believed that magnetism and light were linked as one. If you understand the history of science like I do you would know that the idea that magnetism and light were linked as one was a ridiculous belief BEYOND IMAGINATION during Faraday's time. It was so ridiculous and laughable that almost every scientist ridiculed and laughed at the idea. James Clerk Maxwell was one of the very very few scientists that even merely considered it.

JC Maxwell shocked the world when he proved Faraday right, and Maxwell's Equations arguably changed the world more than anything else in human history!

During Faraday's time everyone was absolutely CERTAIN that magnetism and light were separate things.
Faraday was part of a Sandemanian sect that believed that all things were unified as one, so JUST because of his religious beliefs he insisted that magnetism, light, electricity, and everything else was one.

If Faraday been less religious or atheist based on the historical evidence we can conclude that he would've thought "Why would I believe something so ridiculous beyond imagination that magnetism and light are somehow linked as one. During this time-period that I live in everyone is absolutely certain that magnetism and light are distinctly separate things. I don't have any beliefs without evidence".

That means without Faraday's religious belief Maxwell's Equations (and all the innovations made possible because of it) would probably not exist in modern times.

"Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." - Michael Faraday

- There's no NEED to do science, what humans need for survival is food, water, and shelter, they don't need to study philosophy and astronomy (what caused the scientific revolution) for survival, religion was what a created a need to study philosophy and astronomy. So with atheists there's no NEED to study science, since there's NO NEED, without religion there would be less scientific growth.

So in conclusion:
- 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

If atheists hadn't taken over science in the late 1960s and early-to-mid 1970s the world would've probably been like a Utopia by now! All world problems would've probably been solved, all negative health conditions cured.

Just imagine how fast science, technology, and human progress would grow if authority and incredulity had no value, empirical observations and valid reasoning had the highest value, criticism and scrutiny was strongly encouraged, and intuition and belief without evidence was not discouraged!

Science and technology would grow OUT OF CONTROL, really really fast then!

We'd be in a Utopia-type society by now, but JUST because of the atheists science and human advancement has been held back.

To any atheist reading this: Please just stop doing science, go home and just focus on food, water, and shelter. Just stop doing it if you already participating and if you are considering participating then don't.

I knew I had this debate won.

It's a wrap!
dtaylor971

Con

Ok. Unfortunately, I do not have time for framework because I have to both argue and refute in the same round. But, since you never said that no guidelines will be set in the debate, my guideline about religion still stands. The fourth assertion was pulled from your quote in the first round, "...and pose the greatest threat to science (and mankind as a whole.) And third, all three assertions must be proven (..."I am 100% certain that atheists etc..") They are not all the same thing, so don't even try to make that argument.

Continuing on. I will make arguments in my favor first, then refute my opponent's arguments.

==Evolution of Science==

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]. However, it was mostly because of atheists that science sprung forward. Atheists typically deny all religious explanations, and thus go in search of answers to the greatest questions in the universe themselves.

People who did not believe in God, or any God, were the first to question beliefs. Atheists moved away from supernatural beliefs, thus progressing science significantly. Science, in general, might not exist without the Atheists' ideals of rejecting religious beliefs and testing out theories for themselves. Any way you look at it, science historically started due to atheist ideals.

There is a very clear example of all of this. It's called the Renaissance. After the Black Death, people began questioning the Catholic Church [2] and some even becoming atheists. This rejection of religion and atheist tendencies sparked one of the most artistic and scientific events in the history of the world: The Renaissance. If it wasn't for atheists questioning religion, the Renaissance would not have happened. Science, today, is here because of atheists.

==Atheists do not block human progress==

The thought that atheists would block human progress is preposterous. In fact, there is a better argument to be made that they significantly increase human progress. Atheists put a whole new concept and thinking into science after the middle ages [3], and shed light on how the universe might work. Science can not simply be limited to one simple idea and pursuing it; science must be open to new ideas and comparing theories to find out which one is more likely (atheism v. theism) and propelling the thinking of the world forward.

In fact, a great many of modern famous scientists do not believe in a God. For example, Alan Turing. He is a man who is recognized for creating computer science and artificial technology [4]. He opened up a whole new theory in science, and showed that artificial science is very productive. In fact, he may be the cause for artificial intelligence (computers, robots) that are vital to science today. Alan created a whole new technology world in the human race. In no way, did this atheist block human progress.

Furthermore, atheist thinking is much more scientific than theist thinking. Atheists often turn to science to explain the universe, whereas many theists turn to religion. Atheist thinking can be composed to rejecting certain ideals and pursuing new ones, which is vital to the progression of science and mankind as a whole. In fact, 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. And that certainly does not mean it would be better.

==Atheists do not hold back science==


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. He created and invented the Magnetic Iron Ore Separator [5] which is used to build certain objects, such as the Yankee Stadium. Also note that religion had no correlation to this invention. It seems almost irrelevant which religion an inventor is. Note that science would not be advanced without inventions.

Continuing on, if atheism in science is on the rise, then science should be slowing down (by your logic,) but it is not. Science is progressing just as fast, if not faster, then it was when atheists did not "control science [6]." Your second claim is exactly the opposite: Atheists propel science. Humans are more advanced than ever, and science might be advancing faster than ever. Seems to me that atheists taking over science didn't hold anything back!

I would like to refute now, so I will reserve my remaining arguments for the third and fourth round.

~~Rebuttal A: Cures and Lifespan~~

My opponent states that after the atheists took over science (which, by the way, isn't exactly true,) we immediately stopped finding cures. However, this is false. We eradicated Smallpox in the late 1970's [7], which was one of the greatest accomplishments of all time. Aside from smallpox, we have made vaccines (in the modern times) for the following:

-Tetanus (TDap)
-Rinderpest (Considered eradicated in 2011)
-Polio (Made in 1952, "eradicated" years later)
-Measels (Developed in 1960's, low cases today.)

Atheist scientists have actually been on the rise since the Renaissance, and you show no evidence that atheists took over science in the late '60's and late '70's. However, if this is true, your evidence contradicts itself. The life expectancy (since atheists "took over") has risen from 43 years to 75 years in China, a total of 32 years [8]. 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.

~~Rebuttal B: Scientific Revolution and Nobel Prizes~~

The opposition asserts that scientific revolution was purely because of religion, without any source to back up his claim. However, not only was the scientific revolution because of both atheists and theists, it also marked the starting point for when atheism really started to pick up steam [9]. Even if the Scientific revolution was not intended to question God, it certainly did. Also, we are not arguing if theists contribute more to science than atheists. This point is almost irrelevant.

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. There are countless other variables that my opponent did not consider, which render this argument false and biased.

~~Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments~~

The instigator suggests that atheists, in general, hate science and technology. This is simply not true. The cornerstone of atheist belief, Evolution, lies directly on science [10]. Atheists, such as Stephen Hawking, use technology to pursue science. Even he bases his beliefs off of science. It is completely illogical to think atheists hate science and technology when it is technically their belief.

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation." -Stephen Hawking

Continuing on, my opponent states that atheists have turned science into "pseudoscience," or science based on false evidence. He states the string theory as his only evidence, though it can be explained by perfectly normal science [12]. My opponent also states that science is now "based on authority," with no evidence whatsoever to back him up. Almost any person can observe science for their own and draw conclusions that differ from what the experts say. For example, science is observable even in a stream:

a. The stream is moving.
b. There is a reason things move.
c. The stream moves for a reason.

Going forward, the instigator makes a claim that atheists discourage criticism and scrutiny. Once again, my opponent shows no evidence whatsoever of atheists discouraging questioning. If anything, atheists encourage questioning. Have you not noticed that pretty much every not-proven scientific theory is questioned today? Have you also not noticed that humans began questioning ideas when atheist ideals became popular (i.e Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, etc.?)

Discouraging belief without evidence is perfectly sound. It eliminates bogus theories that have literally no scientific evidence backing it up. When there are less hypotheses, it does not necessarily mean there are less
goodhypotheses. Good, solid beliefs aren't pulled from intuition, but rather from observations and evidence (for example, gravity [13].) Also, Michael Faraday believed two forces were connected because of his religion. I never said religion isn't some form of evidence (though I do disagree it is strong evidence.)

Unfortunately, I am out of characters. I will post more arguments and finish refuting next round. Best of luck to pro on his rebuttals!

Sources:

[1] http://edtech2.boisestate.edu...
[2] http://history.howstuffworks.com...
[3] http://atheism.about.com...
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[5] http://www.thomasedison.org...
[6] http://undsci.berkeley.edu...
[7] http://www.pbs.org...
[8] http://data.worldbank.org...
[9] http://www.dummies.com...
[10] http://ncse.com...
[11] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[12] http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx...
[13] http://web.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
itsnobody

Pro

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...
dtaylor971

Con

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 rebuttal

To 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...
Debate Round No. 3
itsnobody

Pro

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.
dtaylor971

Con

I thank my opponent for responding.

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...
Debate Round No. 4
itsnobody

Pro

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
dtaylor971

Con

I thank my opponent for responding. His rebuttals are in a conclusion format, so it will be a little unusual to refute. I thank the readers for reading this long debate so far, and I thank my opponent for sticking around!!


==My opponent's refuted arguments==


This section will be to show where I refuted my opponent's points (taken from his list in the last round.) Everything is respective (first point is first rebuttal, etc.)

-Refuted in fourth round (Irrelevant points and Guidelines, Religion causes Need for Science.)

-Refuted in second round (Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments)

-Refuted in second round (Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments)

-Refuted in second round (Rebuttal C: The Three Arguments)

-Refuted in third round (Michael Faraday)

In conclusion, we see all of my opponent's main points refuted, meaning he can not win the debate. Note that the BoP rests solely on pro, and he does not have any unrefuted arguments to fulfill his BoP. Furthermore, most of these points were refuted in the second round, and yet he kept going at them. This means most of my opponent's arguments rested on already refuted arguments.


==My opponent's data==


Before we dive into this point, I would like to point out that my opponent lists a ton of data without any sources whatsoever. I will treat these points like arguments. ALL DATA/NUMBERS THAT I USED HAVE BEEN SOURCED IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS OF DEBATE.


==Estonia and Religious Populations==

My opponent keeps going at the Estonia argument, even though it has already been refuted. Estonia has a small population (Switzerland has a larger one), Estonia does not have the educational advantages that the Faroe Islands have, and certainly not the riches that Luxembourg has. Thus, it is reasonable that Estonia would not produce a student who would win a Nobel Prize. Religion may have nothing to do with the number of Nobel Prizes won by country.

My opponent also keeps going at the atheist population argument. First, I would like to say that there is no pre-science civilization in human history that decided to study astronomy because... well, this is self-explanatory. There was no science (pre-science), and they did not have the materials and education we have today. Second, I have shown that China had a lower life expectancy due to a number of variables (war, disease, etc.) However, from 1960-1980, China experienced a huge boost in life expectancy. This was before Christianity came along.

Whether or not the atheists I mentioned came from a religious country is not relevant. The BoP is only and only whether or not atheist contributed something to science. Nowhere does it say that I must prove religion played a role in science. I have refuted my opponent's BoP by the logic below:

a. Stephen Hawking has contributed something to science.

b. Stephen Hawking is an atheist.

c. At least one atheist has contributed something to science.

Before I move on to the next point, I would like to refute the life expectancy argument. First off, life expectancy has risen by about +13.1 years from 1960-2000, which is close to the growth from 1900-1960 (on balance.) We have also cut down on diseases (highlighted by the eradication of Smallpox) since the atheists took over, contrary to what my opponent has said. I have also pointed out that science is growing faster than ever (see third round.)


==Beliefs without Evidence==

This point brought up by my opponent is simply incorrect. Science grew because of observations and ideals, not because of simple shots out of the blue. I evidenced this through Isaac Newton and the discovery of Pluto, both of which have remained unrefuted. In fact, history shows us that important pieces of science grew via observations... not because of beliefs without evidence. The Michael Faraday argument has been refuted. Plus, it is only one example, whereas my assertion has many, many examples.

The argument that atheists discourage people from criticizing and scrutinizing has been refuted, and I have shown that atheist beliefs actually stem up from questioning, and they simply discourage unsupported beliefs. This is kind of how Christians discourage Evolution, polytheism, atheism, etc. The string theory argument has also been refuted (see third round and second round.)

Oh, and if atheists wanted to live in the stone age, there would be no atheist scientists, but there are. Also, atheists would not exist in any big company that threatens the environment, but they do. This argument has been refuted throughout the debate, and it is simply incorrect.

In conclusion, all of pro's data, evidence, and arguments have been refuted. Thus, he has not fulfilled his BoP and can't win this debate.


==My opponent's rebuttals=



This section will be refuting my opponent's rebuttals. Note that a lot of my opponent's rebuttals have already been covered earlier in the debate, so they will not be discussed fully.



==BoP and Historical Stuff ==



My opponent states that I wrongfully stated the BoP. I stated that we were debating whether or not atheists had anything to contribute to science. This was the three assertions summed up. If atheists contributed something to science, they do not hold back the human race, block scientific progress, or pose the greatest threat to science as a whole.

Now, my opponent keeps using the Historical Consensus without any evidence whatsoever. Atheist ideals sparked the Renaissance, not the Scientific Revolution (pardon me if I made that mistake.) After the Bubonic Plague, people began questioning the Catholic Church and their beliefs in God. These are examples of what atheists both think and do. After the Catholic Church lost some power, ancient art and science was discovered. So, atheist ideals and atheists at least somewhat contributed to the Renaissance.

Continuing on, I never stated that the Scientific Revolution could have occurred without religion. My opponent is simply over-emphasizing my statement that atheists and atheist ideals helped sparked the Renaissance. My opponent's argument that religion emphasized the Scientific Revolution is irrelevant, which was explained in the fourth round. Also, I have stated and showed over and over again that my sources are not biased. My opponent simply ignores this.

Christianity did not have a lot to do with the creation of science. Science has been around forever, even if it has only recently reached a significant stage. Christianity arose at around 0 A.D, whereas science was visible (though not significant) thousands of years before. In fact, if Evolution is true (it most likely is) then science was visible even when fire was discovered, though it was not advanced science in any way. Christianity was not the starting point of science.

==Modern Stuff==

My opponent claims that I have ignored the life expectancy of China, but I have not. It was discussed in the third, fourth, and fifth round. My opponent just simply does not see it. Consider this point dropped. Make the same conclusion about the Estonia argument, as I have refuted it in all rounds (except the first.)

Thomas Edison was both an inventor and a scientist. One can not invent without at least some sort of science behind the invention. Take the lightbulb (which he didn't invent, but rather dramatically improved.) This improvement/invention could not have been reached without the reasoning that light can be created from electricity, which is simple science. Yes, Edison was an inventor, but he was also a scientist.

Next, my opponent ignores that Evolution, in some way, creates a need to do science. He did not refute that Evolution causes research in fossils, biological life, and rocks. Evolution is a whole separate theory than Creationism. Evolution was not the result of Creationism, but rather Darwin's research and observations. To say Creationism caused Evolution is simply incorrect from any angle you look at it.

All of my main points remain unrefuted.

==Pro's 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 rebuttal
-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."

All of these points were dropped by pro. Since all of these points negate the resolution, con can not win.

==Conclusion==

In conclusion, we see that my opponent has not fulfilled his BoP at all. He has not proven that atheists hold back science, block human progress, or pose the greatest threat to science as a whole. He has dropped various points of mine that all negate the BoP. Thus, my opponent loses this debate due to failure to uphold the BoP.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 5
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by itsnobody 2 years ago
itsnobody
@dtaylor971 see ya later loser boy...at least you have loser atheists voting things up for you even though anyone who objectively unbiasedly looks at who's arguments are based off hard facts would say I won.

Just argument ad populum, I'm sure the people who voted for you didn't even read everything.

I'm RIGHT, you're WRONG, regardless of votes.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Oh my gosh just GET OFF ALREADY lol
Posted by itsnobody 2 years ago
itsnobody
@dtaylor971 7 it doesn't make me a coward, I'm leaving because debate.org isn't really that good of a place for me to debate.

I prefer a more free and open environment where empirical observations and valid reasoning matter more than authority and incredulity.

You will always hear atheists and the atheist-controlled media say ridiculous things like "without religion science and technology would be ahead" but they never provide any historical or scientific evidence to back up their claims...ROFL

Realistically without religion there would be no scientific method or higher mathematics or Newtonian physics, since those things came from intensely studying philosophy and astronomy, religion caused people to intensely study philosophy and astronomy, and in all of human history not one pre-scientific civilization decided to intensely study philosophy and astronomy after gaining food, water, and shelter without a religion causing them to.

The scientific method is a form of logical empiricism that came from studying philosophy.
Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model that came from studying astronomy.

The historical evidence is so clear on this, I don't know how atheists can really be that biased and close-minded to ignore it.

Without religion realistically Maxwell's Equations would probably not exist since Faraday's belief that magnetism and light were linked as one came from his religion and since during Faraday's time the idea that magnetism and light were linked was really REALLY ridiculous beyond imagination.

If you understand the history of physics you would know what I mean....without Maxwell's Equations there wouldn't be any wireless light-speed communication possible...so the world would be a really different place.

I'm just going to focus on figuring out what I need before it's too late.

See you later!
Posted by itsnobody 2 years ago
itsnobody
@dtaylor971 7 Well I'm new to debate.org, so that doesn't matter much.

Everything I said still stands, you just try to throw personal attacks and change the subject to avoid it.

Debate.org is just junk, I'll just find somewhere else to debate, or invent a place myself.

It doesn't matter that much to me since I already have a blog site and a YouTube channel. I posted some videos on YouTube and some atheists cried and got it removed.

People have to realize what atheists are trying to do society before it's too late.

Notice that the things I've said in this debate are highly original, most people have probably never heard most of this stuff. Con just copied cliche-ish stuff.

So regardless of if people agree or disagree with me, I hope they learned a lot.

I have a NEED to know whether or not something is actually true or false, unlike atheists, that's why they've turned science into a joke, they have no NEED to know the truth.

I've conditioned myself to not be affected by personal attacks or any illogical reason, I don't feel anything, it doesn't affect me.

Living as an atheist or without any religion is just like living like a gorilla or chimpanzee, just focusing on survival. They might as well just go live in a zoo.

It doesn't bother me much, it's nothing personal, it's just the truth.

I just hope I can figure out the parts of the physics model I'm working on that I need before it's too late and atheists succeed at exterminating science, viewing it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time. I hope I have enough time left, with this technology I'm working on I should be able to do almost anything, the main issue I'm trying to overcome right now is the power consumption issue.

Atheists have historically always been the biggest block to human progress.

No greater threat has arisen to mankind than the atheist population.

It'd just be better if atheists stopped participating in science and just gave up and
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
If you want to debate elsewhere, then leave, you coward.
Posted by itsnobody 2 years ago
itsnobody
@dtaylor971 7 actually not, I haven't been proven wrong on any point.

The voting thing is just an argument ad populum as I already explained. In science the way you determine whether or not a belief is true or false is by empirically testing a hypothesis to determine if the belief is true or false, not looking at votes or whatever lol.

An argument ad populum is popular in anti-science/atheist circles, lol.

I'm actually glad, because it solidifies everything that I've said about how science is turning into a laughable popularity contest just about authority and incredulity instead of about empirical observations and valid reasoning.

People have to realize the nature of the threat that atheism and non-religion pose to society.

It doesn't matter how many personal attacks you all throw at me or how people vote, in the end empirical observations and valid reasoning supports everything that I said, everything.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Oh, and just so you know, you could have selected "select the winner" voting system that doesn't include conduct, just who won the debate. In your words,

"You're delusional."
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Hey, suit yourself :P
Posted by itsnobody 2 years ago
itsnobody
Also debate.org's commenting system is buggy, besides the other issues with the debating system relying on an argument ad populum and ad hominem.

Debate.org is just a joke, lol. I'm going to find another to place to debate at.

It doesn't matter to me how people personally "feel" or how they vote, what matters to me is what empirical observations and valid reasoning tells us, everything I said was all valid and true, Con just copied stuff from atheist blog sites lol.

The main block to human progress always has been the atheistic and non-religious population.

People have to realize what atheists are trying to do society.

Right now they've already turned physics into a joke, they focus on empirically untestable mathematical models like "The String Theory" and have considered it as "science".

What a terrible thing the atheists have done to science.

To any atheist reading this - GO HOME AND JUST FOCUS ON FOOD, WATER, AND SHELTER like other animals instead of messing up science.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
In your words,

"I guess someone's mad that I've proven them wrong."
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
itsnobodydtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used lol So conduct to Con...pro dropped arguments So arguments to Con
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
itsnobodydtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's point about how many of the most influential scientists were atheists is all it took to completely negate the resolution. Arguments obviously to Con. Conduct to Con because Pro couldn't seem to go on more than a paragraph without calling his opponent "delusional". S&G to Con for having much better formatting.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
itsnobodydtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources, unsportsmanlike conduct, and failure to clash with Con's actual points = easy Con ballot.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
itsnobodydtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar is split. Pro had awful conduct, claiming to have won the debate after one round, ignoring arguments, making false claims with no proper sources. Con gets the point for conduct. Sources also go to con, since pro barely used any (despite claiming that he has many sources backing his argument). Arguments go to con as well because pro completely failed to fulfill the bop of this debate and failed to address the many valid points that con laid out. Well done con, poorly done pro.