Are Atheists more advanced than Theists?
Do you think atheists are more advanced than theists? As in they have come to the point where they accept the unknown/that life has no intrinsic purpose?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
No
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
2
points
Kind of... well yes. Unlike theists, I feel that I am not hindered by ridiculous age-old beliefs or the preoccupation of worshipping a false god. I accept that life might have no purpose, that there may be nothing after death, that perhaps the universe came out of randomness. I accept all of this and move on my life. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I feel that I am not hindered by ridiculous age-old beliefs or the preoccupation of worshipping a false god. To you the god(s) may be false, but to others it's their truth. They know it as a fact. Regardless of it's objective truthfulness. Even then a religion can denote this belief listed in the debate description. Side: No
|
3
points
'Advanced' seems like a rather loaded term. As written in the debate title: "As in they have come to the point where they accept the unknown/that life has no intrinsic purpose?" It seems to me that the atheist crowd is the one that doesn't accept the unknown, but rather insists that all things must be knowable eventually. On the other hand, being a theist more or less assumes acceptance of the unknown/unknowable, doesn't it? Furthermore, the idea that life has no intrinsic purpose seems more of a nihilist perspective than an 'advanced' one. I'm not saying that atheists aren't more advanced than theists, mind you, but in terms of the debate as written, I can't really give any credit to it. Side: No
1
point
It seems to me that the atheist crowd is the one that doesn't accept the unknown, but rather insists that all things must be knowable eventually. This is simply not true. Most atheists openly accept that they don't know the answers to big questions like how the universe began and also that they may never know. I've never known an atheist who insists that all things can and will be known. On the other hand, being a theist more or less assumes acceptance of the unknown/unknowable, doesn't it? No being a theist assumes "knowing" the answer and filling that answer in for all things unknowable. Theists don't accept the unknown. They just take their god and fill in the blanks so theydont have to deal with the unknown. Furthermore, the idea that life has no intrinsic purpose seems more of a nihilist perspective than an 'advanced' one. Agreed. And not all atheists hold this opinion anyway. Side: Yes
1
point
I disagree. For the average atheist, for an idea to have any merit and be worth any consideration, it must be backed by evidence that the atheist acknowledges as such. There is no acceptance of the unknown; that which is unknown either doesn't exist or hasn't been explored yet. Never is it simply accepted. Being a theist doesn't assume "knowing" the answer. Some certainly get it wrong, but isn't "knowing" directly in conflict with the definition of "belief?" Being a theist is accepting that some things are unknown, unknowable, and choosing to believe in something unprovable; being an atheist is rejecting that things are unknown/unknowable, and declining to believe in something unprovable. My whole point is that these are bad criteria for considering either one more advanced. At best they are nebulous and can be applied to both, at worst they're completely irrelevant. Side: No
1
point
No being a theist assumes "knowing" the answer and filling that answer in for all things unknowable. Theists don't accept the unknown. They just take their god and fill in the blanks so theydont have to deal with the unknown. Uh no. I know that many Christian don't even bother filling gaps with god. They just follow the bible and thats it. You assume the typical theist is representation of all theists. Subjectively they need not to make up excuses since their truth is in their belief system. Side: No
3
points
Are Atheists more advanced than Theists? That's a pretty loaded question, honestly. I don't know if you intended it to be that way. As in they have come to the point where they accept the unknown/that life has no intrinsic purpose? Except an opinion about life or life's purpose is not necessarily a requirement to be labeled an Atheist. All that defines an Atheist is; a rejection of the belief in deities. Anything else is pretty much up in the air. Side: No
1
point
|