Agnostic atheism is the most reasonable perspective to adopt regarding religion.

Nice to meet you Nid, and I appreciate your participation in this debate! "I do not see how this fits my opponent's argument. He argues for Agnostic ATHEISM, not Agnosticism. " - Con, Round 1. I recommend my opposition take a close look at my definitions paragraph, particularly Source 3 for my Round 1 argument, and consider that the position of 'Agnostic Atheism' is separate from 'certain atheism. ' To further clarify his understanding of the word usage, he would also do wise to reflect upon the feasibility of 'agnostic theism' in addition to 'faithful theism. '"I will let it slide in terms of supporting only one part of his assertion, but voters should note this. " - Con, Round 1. If my opposition were to attempt anything other than to "let it slide" (this is a debate, after all), he would discover the task truly difficult. The point to which he refers is irrelevant to his case, as he just demonstrated; and he makes it because he did not read my definitions paragraph or sources, as I just demonstrated. It is unclear whether he honestly interprets his own lack of rigor as generosity, or whether he dishonestly expects such naivety from his readers. Either way, critics would do well to note the cheap scores attempted by my opposition. "R3 is faulty. The ability to read is not needed to "read" a blank page. Even an illiterate person can perceive a page is blank. " - Con, Round 1. Unfortunately for my opposition's case, the arguments he has constructed are in agreement with the case against which he is attempting to argue. "The ability to read is not needed to read a blank page" is a decent piece of truth, and would have most certainly been a relevant one if my point had been, "it takes a great deal of literacy to perceive a blank page. " And his point, "even an illiterate person can read a blank page," is indeed indisputable, and could have been a game-changer, if only my argument had been that "it is difficult for [literate people / illiterate people / anyone, etc. . . ] to read a blank page. " The sentence he believes himself to be disproving, however, reads, "The ability to read does not give you the ability to read a blank page," and he has not demonstrated a line of reasoning that suggests this to be faulty. With this level of disconnect, one could perhaps have predicted he make a similar mistake on S3 that he made on R3 since they are sister concepts:"S3 is also faulty. Assuming he refers to theism, there is an abundance of theoretical evidence of a Deity. " - Con, Round 1. This sentence simply fails to bear any relevance to the phrase it attempts to rebut. It would be a proper response to the phrase, "There is no evidence of a deity," but does not even contradict the phrase, "Science cannot be expected to understand things that have no evidence. " I do appreciate, however, that he submits an example of the evidence to which he refers, for it is relevant to this argument, even if not for the reasons he thinks:"P: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; R: The universe has a beginning of its existence; S: The universe has a cause of its existence. " - Con, Round 1. I now must apologize, as my format appears to have caused some confusion on the part of my opposition. "Pn = proposition regarding interpretation in general. Rn = example of Pn in relation to reading as an interpretive process. Sn= example of Pn in relation to science as a search for truth. " - Pro, Round 1. I am not specifically familiar with the Kalam Cosmological argument, but what my opposition has presented is not a complete Cosmological argument, regardless of which one it may be. A cosmological argument is supposed to also establish that God does NOT have a beginning of its existence and that God IS the cause of the universe existing. Cosmological arguments tend to decay with these points as soon as someone says, "Why? " So it makes sense that my opposition would leave them implicit as a debate strategy, but all points must be brought to the conversation to be properly tested for their validity before anyone can take them seriously. "S1: In the absence of evidence of an object or idea, it is equally logical to suggest its existence or nonexistence. S2: When you do not know if a red marble is inside a bag, the chance of it being there is 50-50. S3: If there is no evidence of a spirit world, its existence cannot be confirmed or denied by science. " - Con, Round 1. This logic is far too binary. In the case of S2: If you know a marble is inside a bag and that it is either red or blue, the chance of it being red is 1/2. If you know that it is either red or blue or green, the chance of it being red is 1/3. If you are unsure whether it is a marble or a bouncy ball, but you know it is red or blue or green, the chance of it being a red marble is 1/6. If you add the possibility of nothing being in the bag, the chance a red marble being in the bag is reduced down to 1/7. If all you know is that there is an object in the bag, the probability of the object being a marble of any color is equal to the number of marbles that exist divided by the number of objects in the universe that fit inside the bag (shark teeth, bananas, bunny rabbits, pantyhose, etc. .. ) which is going to be a very small probability. It makes far more sense to assume there is nothing in the bag until seeing in it a visible outline.