The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

Now, we come to an interesting juncture in this debate. It seems that my opponent and I hold almost identical positions: we hold ourselves as anti-theists and atheists who perceive no convincing reason to believe in a theistic or deistic deity. However, what a person of that opinion must consider themselves is the point of our disagreement, and I hold that atheism is the proper definition for this state. Defined: Atheist vs. Agnostic Since both debaters have so far neglected to present a definition for agnosticism, here it is: "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. " (1) I use the secondary definition, as the first, strict meaning of agnosticism holds that evidence for or against God not only hasn't been found, but indeed cannot possibly exist. While this is for lenient, it would appear that it does not quite correlate with Pro's view. Instead, Pro sees his agnosticism as the inability to come to terms on either side, and so retains a neutral posture. Now this ought to be compared to the definition of atheism, which is classically phrased "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God" (2) Quite an extreme statement as well, I nevertheless see much more wiggle room to alter one's opinion. For me, and for most atheists, we would not say that God cannot exist, or that He absolutely does not, but instead that it is unlikely, and no attestation has yet been presented. Non-believers for the most part deny God in the sense that we reject that idea that the God hypothesis has been in any way confirmed or supported. The atheistic tenant does not mandate that God does not exist, but instead that He probably doesn't. Allow me to provide an example. Imagine, if you will, that you arrive home one day, and your little brother informs you that an elephant just walked around your house. You walk throughout the house to assess the damage, but find none; no doors off their hinges, so broken or upturned tables, no dented walls, and no giant imprints into the floor. No evidence at all. Is it impossible that an elephant walked through your house? Probably not, but the fact that the claim goes unsupported requires one to find it so unlikely that disbelief is the only sensible reaction. Similarly, while the possibility of a deity will always remain, science has rendered the possibility so improbable that it should not be thought true, making atheism the proper view, much less an "honest" view. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Is there no evidence against God? Part of my opponent's case, and one of his contentions, is that there is no positive evidence against God, and there may never be. He is correct in that a negative can never be proven beyond a doubt, but in kind with the elephant example, not only is their a lack of evidence, but missing evidence where evidence should be: that is to say, where signs of God should show up instead displays only scientific explanation according to the Universe's mechanical field. For example, were there a deity, wouldn't we not have a theory about the beginning of the Universe, well backed-up by evidence? The proof of the Big Bang is not infallible, but impressive, and replaces superstition as an account of existence. (3) The same goes for abiogenesis, evolution, and the multiverse theory, and all of them mark the God hypothesis as increasingly unlikely. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, one will always be able to postulate a God into the Universe. My opponent does so, suggesting that such a being would operate outside the bounds of space, time, and known physics. I must ask him: is this likely? Likely enough to merit neutrality? I would submit that no, the explanations humanity possesses are much grander and infinitely more probable than the presence of a God, and unless that particular superstition presents, as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary evidence", it should not be believed, nor pursued. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Both my adversary and I agree on that God isn't very likely. So why is he an agnostic? I enter that if you hold the position that the very real information known about how the Universe works is placed on equal ground with, or only a little more likely than, a deity for which there is no evidence, you may be an agnostic. But if you contend what my opponent and I do, you are an atheist. Atheism does not require any kind of certainty, it requires a single position. Before I turn this debate over to my opponent, I would remind readers that my opponent not only has to prove that agnosticism is superior to atheism, but is also saddled with his self-appointed necessity to prove that atheism is not an "honest opinion". (I assume he means intellectual honesty) With that said, over to my adversary. (1) . http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...= (2) . http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...= (3) . http://www.talkorigins.org...