Debate Score:	20
Arguments:	13
Total Votes:	21
More Stats

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
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

Idiotobx914 (1340)

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.

10 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Idiotobx914 (1340)

1 point

I am really wanting to see a theist's perspective on this debate...

10 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

iLoveVersace (1098) Disputed

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.

10 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

thousandin1 (1931)

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.

10 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

AveSatanas (4443) Disputed

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.

10 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

thousandin1 (1931) Disputed

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.

10 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

AveSatanas (4443) Disputed

1 point

I disagree.

I dont care

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

Not for the average atheist, but anyone with common sense. But fair enough.

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.

How did you get from the above to here? This simply isn't true and doesn't even make sense really. We don't know how the universe began so the beginning of the universe doesn't exist? What? Lemme just set it straight: I as well as the vast majority of atheists are OK with not knowing things. We value truth above all else and when it come to the big questions the truth is we don't know. Idk where you got this idea that atheists stubbornly insist that all things are either known or not real.

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?"

That's why I put the word knowing in quotation marks. They believe these things but within their mentality and religion it is truth. They "know" things.

Being a theist is accepting that some things are unknown, unknowable, and choosing to believe in something unprovable;

Hmmm no. While I don't propose all theists don't accept the unknown, the majority when confrontid with it will apply their religion to it to explain it. This makes sense to them within the context of their own religon. Also they don't choose to believe in these things, it isn't a choice but that's a whole nother debate.

being an atheist is rejecting that things are unknown/unknowable, and declining to believe in something unprovable.

Not quite. More like this:

Being an atheist is accepting that some things are unknown/unknowable because that's the truth and as such reject the unsupported claims of theists.

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.

Pretty much agreed

10 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

thousandin1 (1931) Clarified

1 point

"I dont care"

Sure you do, or you'd have let it go :)

"How did you get from the above to here? This simply isn't true and doesn't even make sense really. We don't know how the universe began so the beginning of the universe doesn't exist? What? Lemme just set it straight: I as well as the vast majority of atheists are OK with not knowing things. We value truth above all else and when it come to the big questions the truth is we don't know. Idk where you got this idea that atheists stubbornly insist that all things are either known or not real."

You have misread me. Look again; my statement is "that which is unknown either doesn't exist or hasn't been explored yet."

We don't know how the universe began so the beginning of the universe doesn't exist does not follow from that- although some theories do assert that there is no beginning to the universe, but rather that past and future both extend to infinity. No, that would be a case of 'hasn't been [sufficiently] explored yet.' I expect we'll gain more insights as we progress. Atheists in general are ok with not knowing things YET; but the idea that something cannot be knowable or provable is more or less anathema to the position.

"That's why I put the word knowing in quotation marks. They believe these things but within their mentality and religion it is truth. They "know" things."

You're wrong, and I expect that I know why. Being a former theist myself, but the idea that they consider themselves to know things and that they consider their religion to be truth is a matter of misinterpretation. "I don't believe there is a God, I KNOW there is a God" is not an assertion that God is factual and provable, it is hyperbole to stress that they believe it fully and will not be swayed. One of the kids in my Sunday School class actually asked that specific question because the inconsistency is obvious, and this was the answer given, though 'exaggeration' was used rather than hyperbole. Truth and Fact are also not the same thing. For example, even if the entire Bible was to be proven conclusively false, there are still truths to be found within it, in the same way as there are truths to be found in many fairy tales; these are moral lessons, ideas that one would expect to be self evident but really aren't to everyone. As an atheist taking the words at face value, I can understand your confusion on the manner, but I hope I've managed to clarify it for you.

I don't see much value in pursuing this discussion much further though; we already agree with the main point Re: this debate, so this is really just bickering over the minutiae.

10 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

iLoveVersace (1098) Disputed

1 point

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.

10 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

GuitaristDog (2548)

3 points

I don't think you can determine how advanced someone is based on their religious views.

10 years ago Side: No