Theism is better then atheism.
Debate Rounds (3)
Theism is the ideology that pursues everything through the choosing of god and by creating order, where atheism pursues nothing, by choosing nothing and by creating disorder. Creating order leads an to everything through the unification of found similarities which create equality. The universe naturally progresses towards nothing which is called entropy. Through this an individual can further this natural progression through differentiation which is done by identifying and creating differences.
So the point being that so long as you as an individual, choose to value everything over nothing, theism is a better ideology to have then atheism.
THEISM: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
ATHEISM: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I myself would add in "specific god or gods" for theism and "theistic God or gods" for atheism, to make it more accurate, but these definitions work fine.
With that in mind, let's address your point(s?).
(1st 'Paragraph'): Theism is not better than atheism. Neither can currently be proved correct as assertive positions and thus, as assertive positions, neither can be philosophically correct. If assertive in their ideologies a theist will say, "I cannot prove God exists. I will nevertheless believe with all my heart that he does.", and an atheist will say, "I cannot prove God doesn't exist. I will nevertheless believe he doesn't because it seems ridiculous to me that he could." However, observe the definitions for both ideologies above.
A theist's position is always assertive because belief in a deity is the same as, say, the proposal of a new scientific theory, and is thus always an assertive position. An atheist, on the other hand, may or may not be assertive because their ideology, by definition, is "disbelief (the assertive one) or lack of belief (which is clearly unassertive)". Therefore, an atheist may either passionately disbelieve or lack belief - the difference is, one asserts whilst the other is merely a state
of neutrality. And a state of neutrality, in a world where objective truth is unknown, is probably the most valid position anyone could have about anything. Therefore, atheism, while imperfect, is actually superior due to its ability to be neutral and theism's inability to be neutral.
As for "in so far as you value everything over nothing": atheism, by definition (at least, by my fixed one), doesn't actually reject the concept of deities altogether. That would be 'adeism'. Atheism merely rejects all deities already theorized - in other words, it rejects theism. So one could conceivably believe in a God whilst being an atheist by virtue of considering that god deistic rather than theistic. Therefore, with theism versus atheism, it's not "everything over nothing".
(2nd Paragraph): Kind of irrelevant to your point and not necessarily true. You yourself say later "so the point being", meaning this entire part can and is summarized, making it as it is worthless.
(3rd 'Paragraph'): Already showed why theism isn't better than atheism, so this part doesn't need to be addressed either.
Your definitions of atheism I will also agree to. The assertive postion and nuetral position both being worse in relation to the assertive position of theism, as long as you value everything over nothing. The assertive position of atheism loses quickly for the fact that I have shown, through my analysis in my second paragraph in the first round, that this assertive approaches embraces entropy through this differentiation process that arises once an individual chooses nothing, or the negative atheism.
Now your second point on the nuetral position of atheism being the best is true, as long as there is not an objective truth, as you have stated. However, that's exactly what I am proposing, an objective truth, which is: a thing is everything and nothing. In making normative, evaluative claims we necessarily use everything or nothing as the aim in our measurements. Therefore if the objective truth is a thing is everything and nothing, or in other words, the individual is relative to everything and nothing, this means that there are two subjective morality, one which aims at everything and one which aims at nothing. So, the fact that we have this objective truth, and objective morality a normative fact can be made as long as it is in reference to the two fundamental subjective moralities.
Which is why I have stated, as long as you value everything over nothing (which is the same as valuing existence over non-existence), theism is better then atheism.
Omniambiguist forfeited this round.
cargiannis forfeited this round.
Omniambiguist forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.