If Atheists really believed in logic and science without deluding themselves they would go insane.

Arguments The resolution isn't very clear so I will take a literal interpretation of what is being said. If atheists really do believe in logic and science (which they do) without deluding themselves (they don't tend to delue themselves) then they would all go insane (false). This is why I am taking the negative position in this debate. I believe that what my opponent is arguing is that atheists that actually believe in science would go insane. Contention 1: Famous atheists that believed in science "Democritus was an ancient Greek philosopher, the most prolific and influential of the pre-Socratics and whose atomic theory is regarded as the intellectual culmination of early Greek thought. For this atomic theory, which echoes eerily the theoretical formulations of modern physicists, he is sometimes called the "father of modern science." He was well known to Aristotle, and a thorn in the side to Plato - who advised that all of Democritus' works be burned." (1) Democritus (or the father or modern science) was also a philospher (as mentioned above). Philosphers are very much the opposite of insane, by definition (2) philosophy is about thinking about the world and discussing reality and existence."The many anecdotes about Democritus, especially in Diogenes Laërtius, attest to his disinterest, modesty, and simplicity, and show that he lived exclusively for his studies." (3) It is clear that Democritus is not insane and studies, research and accounts of his work prove this. His job, more specifically the nature of his job proves that he viewed the world realistically and based his evidence of science and evidence (not decisions due to insanity). Insanity is defined as: extreme [foolishness] or irrationality (4). Democritus (as demonstrated) clearly makes decisions based on science and not on irrationality. People agreed with his scientific studies (by enlarge) and they still do today. Democirtus' job was as a philosopher and scientist he was not insane and my opponent must prove that he is in order to meet his / her burden. Contention 2: Importance of knowledge Knowledge is what allows us to drive cars instead of ride horses, it is what helps us survive far longer than we should, and knowledge is even what prevents us from making the same mistakes that we have made in the past. Sometimes we have problems with knowledge because we have difficulties obtaining it. Being in school, gaining knowledge is mandatory, and people can respond negatively to being forced to learn, but the knowledge you gain in that class can actually help you succeed further down the line. It sounds strange, but it’s possible that you can forget how to learn (5) Science is important to our understanding and is therefore important to our knowledge. This debate regards insanity and insanity is contradictory to knowledge. Since my opponent has associated Atheism with science they are accepting that the majority of Atheists use science to justify their views. Science is a rational justification as to how things occur in Atheism and that is usually the reason as to why Atheists don't believe in God. Atheists are rational because they believe in scientific explanation that are valid and explain in detail why certain things occur. Religious people decide to base their lives off book when in reality only one (or none) of their books will be the actual book that God and his followers wrote. Atheists actually look at evidence before making irrational decisions. If anybody is is insane, it is the believers in God. Contention 3: Theists are less rational than Atheists I will expand upon what I began to refer to in my previous contention. Theists (believes in a deity) and the majority of theists believe in a holy book (written hundreds of years ago). Nobody is alive to validate any of the evidence that these holy books state. People believe in these books because they state things such as: if you don't believe in this religion, you will go to hell. People fear these claims and decide to base their lives based upon this. In the religion of Islam it states that anybody that converts from Islam to another religion should be beheaded! In Christianity it states that anybody other than Christians will go to Hell. In Hinduism it states that disabled people deserve to be disabled because they were bad in a previous life. That is a horrible and irrational way to view life. My opponent must provide proof that these religions are rational to believe in. These religion teach us to be satisfied with not understanding the word and by definition, this is an irrational way to view life (6). I will provide rebuttals in the next round of this debate.Sources(1) http://brainz.org...;(2) https://www.google.co.uk...; (3) https://en.wikipedia.org...; (4) https://www.google.co.uk...(5)https://blog.udemy.com... (6)https://www.google.co.uk...