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

Yes I will start another debate on that subject; I can cite many unexplained phenomena that scientists couldn"t come up with any forum of explanation to. Ok, so you admit you accept the possibility, while this is a relevant statement, I would like to state that in the 1950s Black holes were considered "Science Fiction", but modern science shows that the Dark Star actually exists, until just recently the Kraken was considered Greek mythology, but now we know that the Greeks were most likely talking about the Giant Squid, in 1899 sending a man to the moon was considered Science Fiction, but in 1969 they were proved wrong, until just recently life existing on other planets was considered "Science Fiction", until a rock from mars was found with fossilized microbes in it, until the 1980s a handheld phone was only in Star Trek, the point is, history is filled with stories where science "proves" things to not exist, but it turns out they do, the only debate against this is that we are more technically advanced then before, but don"t you think that people in the 1950"s considered themselves "More advanced than ever before", but that did not prevent them from deeming things "non-existent" when the reality is that they do. As to the fern, the way I see it their environment had to be favorable to the fern with spores, but gradually changed, otherwise the ferns would not be able to "evolve" quick enough, and if this is the case, then why did the environmental change affect the area where spores were favorable, environmental change can only happen my either massive natural circumstance (such as a volcano eruption, or an earthquake), or massive unnatural circumstance (humans), either one would affect the world environment, plus fern spores can only be planted near by the fern they came from, seeds can only be transported long distances by either birds or wind, spores are under ground, so birds cannot eat them, and wind will not pick them up. Alright, I do not understand your stance on my comment, but I won"t ask you because that would delay publishing my debate, and that is not efficient, so the way I see it there is two possibilities, one you disagreed, in which case my rebuttal is after two, two you admitted I was right in which case there is no cause for further debate, so with no further waiting here is my rebuttal; You cannot pin the atrocities done "In the name of God" on Christianity, the massacre of the Indians for example, trying to say that Christianity is evil because it was used to justify the Indian Massacres would be like someone committing a murder, then the police find the murder weapon, so instead of charging the murdered, THEY CHARGE THE ACTUAL GUN, the truth is is that atrocities such as slavery, the slave masters would have found some form of justification regardless of religion, they used Christianity because EVERYONE believed it, so the justification they used could be uniform, if not Christianity, they would have justified it by something like- skull shapes (What"s that? They did? You mean people will find other justifications besides religion- weird.) Now I have a few points to bring up, god defiling free will as opposed to "protecting his creations" would be like our government genocide anyone who was related to a criminal or anyone who wasn"t a very good person, then imprisoning everyone else as to "protect them", we do not live in Mexico or China where everyone is "guilty until proven innocent", likewise is god, even if someone is a murderer, we follow democratic and constitutional values, god does the same, if you were to go with this you would have to also testify against trial by jury, and the constitution because we should just arrest someone because "we can"t take any risks", in this sense god has a law code that he must abide by. And yes I would continue this debate if you have more rebuttals.