Do Atheists think? (Pro/For) or do they not think? (Con/Against)

Since we only have this remaining round, I would not mind continuing this in another debate. I'd also like to respond to some rebuttals you made. "Now there is another problem, you say that some atheists (Including yourself) don"t hold evolution or the theory of relativity as true, but you are yet to provide alternative, you don"t believe in creationism, or evolution, so how then did the universe and humanity come into existence." I don't hold the theories of evolution or relativity as fact, but I do see them as possible truths. I'm a very agnostic person in the sense that I don't hold many things as fact, I only hold certain possibilities as more likely than other possibilities. I know that's somewhat convoluted, but that's how I see the world. It's impossible for an Atheist to believe in creationism, since creationism requires a creator. Evolution is simply the only logical answer to the question of how we are what we are now. Also, we don't need an answer just yet. I see nothing wrong with not having an answer at all times, in fact I think that's the origin of religion (ie attempting to answer the questions of the world) "I would also like to state that as long as there is a number of unexplained events that you and other atheists fail to provide an alternative to (As opposed to creationism), then there is always a room for the possibility of god." What unexplained events are you speaking of? If you like we could do another debate on that subject. "Though you do not accredit yourself to either creationism or evolution, you still say there is no god with the same certainty, and the same amount of proof, as theists say there is a god, hence, still making an unprovable theory." Atheists (on average, I can't speak for all Atheists) do not deny that there is any possibility of a god or gods, we just don't put faith in it. There's a possibility, yes. " ...for one is the fern, according to evolution, ferns "evolved" to grow flowers because growing flowers is a more favorable trait than growing spores, but if this is the case, then why did the fern with spores survive and not the ones with flowers." This tells me you may not know fully how the evolutionary process works. (Visual aid: http://prntscr.com... ) Think of it as the tree you see there. One form of the fern, in this case the spores, was the best form for the environment it was in. Then, somehow fern spores were transported to another environment in which spores were not the best form of a fern. Thus started a long process of mutations and changes in the structure in the fern, transitioning from one reproductive form to another until it arrives at flowers. Just like a tree, when a species branches off and evolves into another form then that original species stays in place until the ecosystem it inhabits changes, thus making the original form obsolete. At that point the original fern will have to either evolve into a new form or it will become extinct. In closing, ferns with spores survive because in the ecosystem they're in they still survive. "I would also like to take this debate as an opportunity to make yet another point, a popular belief among atheists is that religion causes mass genocides, to refute this I would like to bring up the events at Nanking, though the Japanese did not attribute themselves to any god, they still pillaged, plundered, stole, killed, and destroyed etc. As another example, the hundreds of thousands of guillotined people during the French "Reign of terror" were also not attributed to "The Name of God", in fact they illegalized all religions, and many of those people were killed for attributing themselves to Christianity." I'd actually like to have another debate for this, because this would take quite a bit of discussion to make a proper argument for. In short, I'd have to say this. I don't think that religion (or lack thereof) was a cause for genocides such as the German holocaust, colonization of Native American land in America, or communist Russia's genocide of all religious people (which I have a refutation of here: http://prntscr.com... ). All of those genocides had a motive, such as attempting to make an Aryan race or make people more obedient to their country. I wouldn't say it was the religion or lack thereof that caused these, but it did create an environment where those actions could be justified somehow. (ie Hitler stating he was doing God's work in Mein Kampf or Stalin saying Atheism was the best ideology) Any ideology is totally capable of being a healthy and positive feature of a person's life, but when coupled with ignorance and intolerance it can become deadly. This is why ISIS can quote the Quran to justify what they do, but your next door neighbor can be a Muslim be a pillar of the community. The difference between the two is ISIS is ignorant, intolerant, and violent. Your Muslim next door neighbor works at the local homeless shelter and doesn't care if you don't accept Allah. "According to Webster"s Dictionary, subscribing and believing, they are the same. "Subscribe səbG2;skrīb/ Verb Past tense: subscribed; past participle: subscribed 2. Express or feel agreement with (an idea or proposal)." If we're going to get into semantics then fine. Belief holds the connotation that faith is involved with your reasoning. For instance, synonyms for "belief" are faith, trust, reliance, confidence. Synonyms for "subscribe" are accept, endorse, back, champion. Frankly, that's a weak point to include in your argument and brings down your rebuttal as a whole. Before I dive any deeper I'd actually like to say that if there is a God, it would most likely be closer to a deity than a theity. (I know this isn't a word, but there's no known for a theistic supernatural body other than "god") For this I'll cite a somewhat comical YouTube video by NonStampCollector (Video in question: ). There are MANY contradictions in the Bible, so this would make it difficult to believe the stories within it. As well as the morals behind a theity that puts free will before protection of their believers. Here's a YouTube video by DarkMatter2525 that portrays the argument better then I could with such little space left. ( ) Now we get to the scientific process of figuring out if there is a god. The question: Is there a God? The hypothesis would be there is a God, since it's much easier to prove a positive than a negative. In fact, it's impossible. The experiment is where we hit a wall. How would we find God? Or prove he exists? If the Bible is to be believed he's in the clouds, since the Tower or Babel was to reach the "Heavens" where God presides. We know that's not where God is, since we have planes, satellites, spaceships, and probes. Eventually, people came to believe he was omnipotent and invisible. Everywhere yet nowhere. The fact of the matter is it's impossible to create an experiment that would be able to prove or disprove God, or for that matter any theity or deity. The thing is, Science is the study of the physical and natural world. God, if real, is a metaphysical and supernatural being. As for the "experiment" you offered, which is "what would the world be like if there is a god, what would the world be like if there is not a god?" that's not much of an experiment. Because we'd both answer this question differently. You'd say a world with a God would be like this one, because you believe God exists. I don't think the existence of a theity is likely, so I would say a world without a theity is like this one. Science deals with the hear and now. We can't apply the scientific method to something or someone that is neither physical nor natural. Unfortunately it's impossible. In closing, I'm a little disappointed that the debate itself did not end up being about the title but I did enjoy the discussion. I'd like to welcome you to tag me in any debates you'd like to discuss, and with your permission I'd do the same with you. Thanks for keeping it civil and respectful, since unfortunately people can get too heated discussing things like religion.