Dan Norton | Madison | Agnostic

The three debaters stand at their little podiums in front of the collection of 40 or 50 students.

Time for the Speaker for Theism to speak.

"Certainly, the weakest position up here, and I say this with no disrespect, is that of the agnostic. Fence straddling on such a vital and important issue is simply unacceptable. And, while it's a given that my stance requires a certain amount of faith, I feel that faith is little to ask, given the immense rewards that religion offers."

Time for the Speaker for Atheism to orate for a short while.

"The philosophical evidence clearly points out that all religions lay seated on some type of science defying miracle, some aspects of which defy all modern reason. Where was God for the Holocaust? Where was He for the car crash I witnessed this morning? While I will be the first to admit that I have no given proof to unequivocally demonstrate the lack of a deity, I think the faith that is asked is a small price to pay to try and reconcile a conscious deity with modern science and daily atrocities.

Finally, the Speaker for Agnosticism gets his turn.

"I assume, gentlemen, that you both do not enjoy being wrong."

Squinting stares and slow nods from both sides.

"Well, I have in my closed hand a pen. This pen is of a certain color. And furthermore, I will tell you that it is either red or black. Now, decide."

The Speaker for Theism starts to squeak "How are we supposed to decide when we have no - oh, cute."

The Speaker for Atheism says nothing.

"Please, will the Speaker for Atheism tell me what color the pen is. And peeking at my notes will not help, Speaker for Theism. I typed them."

This is enough embarrassment to provoke a response from the Speaker for Theism. "Well, fine. Black then."

The Speaker for Atheism resigns to his fate, "Red. Why not."

The Speaker for Agnosticism opens his hand to reveal a blue pen. "Well, look at that. It seems that both of you jumped the gun there. Sometimes the only rational course of action is to accept that there is not enough evidence to make a decision. And furthermore, it seems that faith is a poor substitute for reason, considering it is such a complex and ultimately non-essential issue. *

"I can hardly see how you can call the question of whether or not a deity exists a non-essential issue" grumbles the Speaker for Theism, with an agreeing grunt coming from the Speaker for Atheism.

The Speaker for Agnosticism begins to orate "I think the fact that you both are here today serves as a good example of the non-essentiality of the issue. Both of you are on complete opposite sides of the issue, yet both of you are decent, relatively happy human beings, getting everything you need from your religious stances. You both can't be right, however. This means that one of you is absolutely wrong, and yet are still completely satisfied with the answer you believe, getting everything you want to be getting out of your respective faiths. "

"So, because of this, it seems to me that since any answer regarding the fact of a Creator yields the same satisfactory results, the truth of the issue is not essential. This, of course, will become less and less true as more and more of the nature of our Universe is understood, but we won't have that worked out for quite some time, as far as I can tell."

"So, in conclusion, gentlemen, instead of guessing your favorite pen color, why not wait for my hand to open a little more before you make a decision that is uninformed at best and quite likely wrong?"

The Speaker for Atheism, feeling the need to quickly issue a rebuttal, quips, "Hey buddy, I got your pen. I got your pen RIGHT HERE."

And that was pretty funny, but not very good philosophy.

The Speaker for Agnosticism opens his hand to reveal a throwing knife. Kthhhunk! Into the neck of the Speaker for Atheism. "Ylrgggh, Godddd." he gurgles. "It's a bit late for that, don't you think?" comments the Speaker for Theism.

E-mail Dan Norton by visiting Filament Games.

— graphic by Jeffrey Avila