The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

Upon reviewing the debate, I noticed a demanding hole that must be filled. God has not been defined. Now, the exact meaning of what a God would be is ambiguous, but researching it best yields "A being of supernatural powers or attributes". (1) My opponent may disagree with this if he likes, but in order to create the Universe and its inhabitants, this deity must indeed exist outside the known realms of space and time, places that we do not know exist. What is an atheist? Providing a definition for the term atheism, my opponent might have done well to also look up "disbelief", instead of simply insinuating that it barred any chance of variation or oscillation. Disbelief n. Refusal or reluctance to believe. (Dictionary. com) (2) It is of course up to the reader, but I see no reason why either of the words "refusal" or "reluctance" implies anything close to absolute, unequivocal subscription to atheism. In fact, this being what atheism is defined as matches impeccably with my opponent's views. The correct terminology for one who doubts the God hypothesis, and sees no evidence to support, is not agnostic. God of the Gaps Now, my adversary and I seem in even greater agreement then I previously imagined; we both not only agree that God is not especially likely, but that a God almost certainly could not exist within the known Universe. Pro calls our section of existence "a speck of dust", an apt description. However, what we have been able to discern extends far, far beyond, to the beginning of the Universe, to the creation of the planets, and even to the random coagulation of those first amino acids. Everyday, our scientific knowledge grows, and we are aware of even more that we do not know as a species. So, I must ask the question: why must we postulate a supernatural being where none is needed to fulfill our understanding? While this seem irrelevant, Pro seems to be grasping the same straws as many theists and deists I've debated, making excuses, and cop-outs for how God could still be a reality. The fact that there have been no signs of him yet, even as our understanding of our world grows, lends against such an entity. Allow me to get to the point. Humanity will never, ever know everything there is to know, nor will we ever be able to preclude the existence of a God. And atheists certainly don't. But to place a God in the few possible gaps which He may occupy suggests neither theism, deism, or agnosticism. Until more evidence is uncovered, the processes of the Universe will continue to be discovered, and everyday, the possibility of a deity becomes more and more improbable, as it is now. Simply because the Big Bang Theory and the God hypothesis are not totally mutually exclusive, does not render the chance even remotely more probable. This is not agnosticism. The elephant example is a paragon of this phenomenon. My opponent's response to the story is to ask a series of inane questions that completely miss the moral, I suppose you could call it, of the story. Perhaps this little brother mistook something else for an elephant, or maybe meant a mechanical creature or other more metaphorical meaning, but this does not alter the fact that no elephant walked through the house. It is, by direct interpretation false, even if something else by meant by it. Comparatively, it could be argued that God exists in a metaphysical sense, or even a naturalistic sense, but this does not effect the conclusion: the evidence does not support the statement. I apologize for the brevity of this response, and I am quite well occupied with school. However, I will conclude by saying that it seems to me Atheism does not exclude a deity, nor does theism guarantee it exists (although it wishes to), and their textbook definitions carry that out. In order for my opponent to prove atheism "dishonest", he would have to show that the possibility of God's existence and non-existence reside on equivalent, or essentially equivalent levels. Otherwise, he should profess atheism, not agnosticism. Best of luck to my opponent in the comings rounds. (1) . http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...= (2) . http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...=