Unbreakable Debates

[Unbreakable Will]

I need something to occupy my time until I start college and find work. So I have decided to start a few debates to see what my fellow EoFFers think about things. I will award points at the end of every debate, debators will be given 48 hours to respond to each round, I will remain a neutral party only giving my opinion if asked (my opinion will not count towards either side).
Points are awarded by the quality of each sides argument, meaning if one side says "I believe that Raoul Duke is cool because I like him" and the other says "Raoul Duke is a horrible plague on this earth because of his unethical standpoints and continuous roundhouse kicks to the face." I will most likely be giving the point to the Con-Raoul Duke side of the debate.

Here are the rules:

Please state in your first post as to which side you are debating for so I can keep track of the proceedings
No insults, we are all civilized and should stay that way
A few jokes here and there are fine by me ;D but not too much
Stay on topic please
ROUND ONE'S TOPIC: Atheism VS. Theism
Is Atheism the best way to go or is Theism? Give your reasons why.

Teams-
Atheism:Tama2
Theism:

[Tama2]

Agnosticism.

[Namelessfengir]

dont you mean atheism??

[Unbreakable Will]

Nah, too easy. lol

[Raistlin]

The debate should be properly stated as atheism vs. theism. Agnosticism is merely a subset of the former (or "weak" atheism). Atheism (or "not/lack of theism") is simply an absence of theism. I'm not sure why you picked agnosticism for one side considering most self-labeled agnostics try to see themselves as a "moderate."

[Unbreakable Will]

Alright, consider myself thouroughly reprimanded. :P
Edit: ah whatever hey admins, go ahead and lock the thread lol

[Timekeeper]

Wait, you're closing up already? Awww...

Regardless I like to think that Agnostic people are simply atheists with an open mind :D

[Jiro]

I'm willing to give an unresearched opinion on whatever the other side is in any of these arguments. I don't care, I'm pretty good at arguing either side of debates (and by pretty good I mean I'm probably crap but whatever).

[Tama2]

I have a feeling this thread will have to be moved to EoEO.

[Blue Harvest]

Wait, you're closing up already? Awww...

Regardless I like to think that Agnostic people are simply atheists with an open mind :D

It's hard to have an open mind about stuff that's physically impossible.

[Timekeeper]

Wait, you're closing up already? Awww...

Regardless I like to think that Agnostic people are simply atheists with an open mind :D

It's hard to have an open mind about stuff that's physically impossible.

How about metaphysically? xD
It mightn't be physically possible in this universe, life or anything like that, but it could be in others.
Chances are I'm wrong, but I don't know that for sure.
That's the one thing I'm sure of; I can't be sure of anything.

[Raistlin]

That's the one thing I'm sure of; I can't be sure of anything.

How do you function? Do you cringe in fear at every step because there might be a gaping pit you can't be sure isn't there? Or do you not fear because you can't be sure that all of reality isn't just a figment of your imagination?

What you're saying isn't some profound conclusion; it's a cop-out to excuse a lack of thought.

EDIT: From a purely logical standpoint, there is no way to be 100% certain of anything. However, using the tools that we have (i.e., our senses and logical deduction), we can develop degrees of certainty about assertions that make certain conclusions more likely than others. A simple example: I see a computer in front of me. I can be as sure as possible that it really exists because all of the evidence possibly available to me (all of my senses agree, I have no reason to believe I'm hallucinating, etc.) agrees on that same conclusion. The same sort of logic (weighing the evidence) can be extrapolated to more complex problems, including the existence of a god.

[Bunny]

Eric Clapton exists therefore God exists.

Debate over. Next.

[Crimson]

Music that supports drugs, sex and crime has become complete mainstream in the music world, therefore there is no God and justice in this world.


Debate over. Next.

[Madame Adequate]

My breakfast consists of beings who your gods worship.

Debate over. Next.

[Timekeeper]

How do you function? Do you cringe in fear at every step because there might be a gaping pit you can't be sure isn't there? Or do you not fear because you can't be sure that all of reality isn't just a figment of your imagination?

What you're saying isn't some profound conclusion; it's a cop-out to excuse a lack of thought.

EDIT: From a purely logical standpoint, there is no way to be 100% certain of anything. However, using the tools that we have (i.e., our senses and logical deduction), we can develop degrees of certainty about assertions that make certain conclusions more likely than others. A simple example: I see a computer in front of me. I can be as sure as possible that it really exists because all of the evidence possibly available to me (all of my senses agree, I have no reason to believe I'm hallucinating, etc.) agrees on that same conclusion. The same sort of logic (weighing the evidence) can be extrapolated to more complex problems, including the existence of a god.

Yea, I was basically trying to say that there is no way to be 100% certain of anything. I agree with you that you oviously have to use what you can to try and understand the known and the unknown, but there's no way that we can know and understand everything around us. I would not be able to prove that there is a teacup in space 800 million miles from earth, but I can't disprove that either. Yes it is extremely unlikely, but there's still that possibility.

[Tama2]

I would not be able to prove that there is a teacup in space 800 million miles from earth, but I can't disprove that either. Yes it is extremely unlikely, but there's still that possibility.

Mathematically speaking there is one out there. (Of course, if the universe is infinite.)

[Raistlin]

I would not be able to prove that there is a teacup in space 800 million miles from earth, but I can't disprove that either. Yes it is extremely unlikely, but there's still that possibility.

The point I was making is that just because something is possible (and taken literally everything is possible on some level), that doesn't make it equally likely as an alternative. Just because it's possible there's a giant teacup floating around out there doesn't mean it's as equally likely as there not to be. And so for these sorts of questions it's a perversion of logic (pseudo-logic, if you will) to just throw up our hands and say "well if it's possible, I can't say either way," because if you did that then you couldn't decide anything, ever, including what is right in front of your own eyes.