CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
depends on the religion. Karl Marx said that religion is an opiate to the masses. but then this is the same guy who let his children starve to death as he wrote the worst political book in the world. communist manifesto.
Not really, they all elevate a priesthood to positions of power and wealth at the expense of the intellectual freedom of the people. The only exceptions are those monks in Asia, but they're an odd bunch.
actual it does depend on the religion. the religion i practice consist of no clergy higher elated person leading me but pure self interpretation of the bible. and Marx was more of a joke thrown in there, might as well add some one else's thought for kicks.
You have religion confused with just about everything. It is the government, schools, your employer that suppresses thought and keeps people under control.
Definition of ORIENTATION
1a : the act or process of orienting or of being oriented
b : the state of being oriented; broadly : arrangement, alignment
You have religion confused with just about everything.
No, I haven't. Religion can be broadly defined as an institutionalised set of spiritual beliefs to which many people adhere.
It is the government
Yes, but this does not preclude the inclusion of religion in the list of bodies responsible for intellectual suppression.
schools
In my experience (and by looking at your grammar and relative level of knowledge, I can gauge that I have more experience in schools than you do) schools and university are quite the reverse.
You know damn well what I mean. That you lack any intelligence because you don't think on your own, you rely 100% on others to do your thinking.
It takes a lot of nerve for someone whose entire "knowledge" is the bible to chastise someone for alleged unoriginal thinking. It's a bit like a Nazi calling Israel Zionist.
It takes a lot of nerve for someone whose entire "knowledge" is the bible to chastise someone for alleged unoriginal thinking. It's a bit like a Nazi calling Israel Zionist.
It amuses me to note that his idea of original thinking is quoting somebody else.
It takes a lot of nerve for someone whose entire "knowledge" is the bible to chastise someone for alleged unoriginal thinking. It's a bit like a Nazi calling Israel Zionist.
It amuses me to note that his idea of original thinking is quoting somebody else.
Actually I am a scientist, that is why I don't believe all the bull. So you are mistaken. There is a great leap of faith to believe in anything, including science. There are so many gaps that one can rarely draw any conclusions, one can only speculate. To have results that are 75% to 90% and come to a conclusion something works or is a certain way, it is not. When results of an experiment are 100% then it is a certainty. There is no certainty in life or in science, both have the human error in them. If one does an experiment 100 times, there is human error and other factors that make even the most careful test only 99.9%. 100% doesn't exist. Some might think that 99.9% is the same as 100%, it is not. I spend my days looking for that .1% error and often there is no explanation of this fluke. When science can explain the unexplainable in a scientific manner, then I will change my beliefs. Instead most of them write it off to human error and proved no proof of this error. I do not concede to writing anything off that one cannot disprove, this includes God.
Actually I am a scientist, that is why I don't believe all the bull.
Like Doctor Kent Hovind?
Do you have a degree in Omniology?
I do not concede to writing anything off that one cannot disprove, this includes God.
God is defined to be unfalsifiable in nebular religions, in specific religions god is defined in stark but contradictory terms which make him logically impossible.
The nebular god has no utility and there is consequently no need for him.
There is a great leap of faith to believe in anything, including science.
There is a leap of faith in believing that you are anything more than a cloud of associating atoms that one moment might blink out of existence. Ultraskepticism is often a mask for an underlying emotional basis.
I'm so glad that you think so highly of yourself. It is no wonder that you don't believe in God, you are already on cloud 9. To look down on the rest of mankind, must really boost your ego. How's the weather up there?
I'm so glad that you think so highly of yourself. It is no wonder that you don't believe in God, you are already on cloud 9. To look down on the rest of mankind, must really boost your ego. How's the weather up there?
Never heard of him until now. He is offering anyone that can prove evolution $250,000. You should go for it. You claim to have the answer to everything.
Of coarse I'm just yanking your chain, the $250,000 is safe.
Never heard of him until now. He is offering anyone that can prove evolution $250,000. You should go for it. You claim to have the answer to everything.
Of coarse I'm just yanking your chain, the $250,000 is safe.
He is a charlatan. The money is safe because of terms which are impossible to satisfy. Typical of professional creationists.
If I am ambiguious, it is no fault of mine. Do some of that critical thinking that atheist claim they hold the patent rights to and all will be clear.
Secondly all human beings are stupid, and I am human too.
Thirdly, it is impossible for anybody to do thinking without rely on others. Influences thoughout your life even effect this. Original thought has been died for centuries.
If I am ambiguious, it is no fault of mine. Do some of that critical thinking that atheist claim they hold the patent rights to and all will be clear.
Typical thinking of your kin. You bear no responsibility for your actions.
Secondly all human beings are stupid, and I am human too.
Many humans are stupid. You are one of them.
Thirdly, it is impossible for anybody to do thinking without rely on others. Influences thoughout your life even effect this. Original thought has been died for centuries.
You apparently don't know what original thought is.
Why do atheists group every single religion out there into one big "religious people" group, then judge them all? (because they all must be the same and think the same way right?)
Probably so that they can put every religion down at once and say 'we're better'. David usually does this.
Look people, there are lots of different religions out there. Quit putting them all in the same place to judge, that's not fair. If you're going to complain about religion. Pick one and be specific!
If the motion where to specify one particular belief over others, then the entire debate would be flooded with people whining about having religion "Y" being singled out or that Atheists are out to insult religion "Y".
As the creator and moderator of this debate, i will clarify that this is a prospective debate and therefore people are perfectly free to use whichever religion they want to as an example to build and base their arguments on.
Speaking of Fairness and Judgment, something which religions have always been so passionately keen on.
Since when did religious doctrines play fair or refrain from being judge and jury towards different people with different beliefs or let people build and expand on their own thoughts, regardless if they didn't reach the same conclusion?
The only person complaining so far is you, so please don't turn this debate into another "tag you're it" charade.
I would have thought it too obvious to need pointing out, but since a "dogma" or "doctrine" is by it's very nature exclusionary and judgmental, it makes little sense to assail those who hold them on the basis of "fairness", or the fact that tend to "judge" (i.e. exclude) those who don't hold to them.
You seem blind to the fact you hold to "dogmas" of your own that are just as exclusionary and judgmental as any coming out of any religion I know of (your initial quesiton assumes the "dogma" that "religious people look down on critical thinking"), and this is usually the sign of the person operating primarily on bias, rather than critical thought. The irony here is that you're representing exactly the kind of personal bias you seem to find so offensive from religious people.
Perhaps the whole concept of this debate would be better served if you kept irony out of it.
Why is it always perfectly fair for religions and their scholars, preachers and followers to say what they say and then it's harsh and unfair for non-theists such as myself to raise little questions?
To be blind is to believe something without question.
On the other hand criticizing with rational inquiry as far from bias and certainly not judgmental.
Your claim that the motion assumes dogma is either you haven't grasped the actual concept of the question and are therefore making an argument from ignorance or you're deliberately trying to twist the whole concept by shedding the victim light on religious people (I'm not saying you're ignorant, don't take it personally)
It's virtually impossible for someone to hold any dogmas if they place their conscious on the level of critical thought and skeptical inquiry because the person's mindset is constantly changing viewpoints into better ones, thus building a more robust outlook based on logic whereas dogmas are principles merely based on blind obedience and blatant ignorance.
Modern day athiests who pride themselves on critical thinking often specialise their attention on what they can see or measure. Religious people often see these people as time wasters as they believe in things that are unseen and unmeasureable. Faith is treated by these people as evidence of a lack of critical thinking as it revolves around ideas of thing unseen and unmeasureable. Religeous people think critically but do so in paradigms of thinking that athiests like to believe are not critical thinking.
When religeous people or athiests try to point at each other and make acusations such as the other can't think critically, the quality of the discussion deteriorates to power plays. It is better for everyone to try and understand the paradigms of thinking that each other has and why they ignore some arguments.
You start with the rather controversial assumption that religious people look down on critical thinking. The fact is that in the real world there are a tremendous number of people who consider themselves "religious" and claim to be who are not in fact. The fact is that in the real world there are a tremendous number of people who consider themselves "critical thinkers" and who claim to be who are not in fact. These two facts, taken together, make it true that it is possible for it to APPEAR that "religious people" look down on critical thinking, when in fact that is not the case at all. Given that possibility wouldn't a debate about THAT be in order first?
I'm new to this forum, so would someone enlighten me? Is putting the cart before the horse accepted procedure here? You see, I don't do things that way, primarily because I consider myself a critical thinker, who may not know very much, but knows that valid argumentation must proceed from fact where "fact" is more or less universal consesus concerning the truth or falsehood of a proposition. Clearly the truth value of the proposition, "Religious people look down on critical thinking" is not any where near universally held among either religious or non-religious people, rendering it incapable of grounding a debate as to why it's true! Why then would any "critical thinker" propose it as such?
Religion is a comfortable blanket that makes people feel they "belong" and creates an illusion of immortality. Introduce critical thinking and suddenly one has to face mortality and deal with the fact that they are not so important as whichever fairy tale has lead them to believe they are.
Unfortunately most of the religious run from the uncomfortable idea they may be wrong about something so fast that they never have a chance to appreciate the beauty of the idea of 1 limited life and belonging to a world of humanity instead of their one small parish.
For me, I would not trade one short life of freedom, for one of immortality in which I were forever subject to some god whom I disagree with on nearly everything - if what any of the religious say of this mythical being are even half true.
Fortunately logic and observation all point to god being quite the myth.
"Religion is a comfortable blanket that makes people feel they "belong" and creates an illusion of immortality. "
Wow your first sentence is so flawed and incorrect. Christian's repent when they do something wrong and they know that no matter how many times they try to repent they will always be at fault, because they are not worthy. You are saying that religious people think that they exclude themselves from other people and act as if they are going to be living a unending life? Christian's know that they have to earn their rightful place if they want to be in heaven. Choosing to believe in God does not make you create an illusion of immortality, in fact it lowers all your defenses and you have to learn to accept anything that happens in your life.
No one chooses to believe or not believe anything. Belief is an involuntary reaction of the brain which results from the processing of data.
Almost every single study conducted demonstrates that the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to believe in a god or gods. If there is a god, he's given those who are intelligent enough not to believe in him, a severe disadvantage.
Of everyone in the U.S. only 1.6% consider them self atheist, and 2.4% agnostic. Ignoring that the majority of agnostic seem when pressed to believe in some sort of greater being, let's say of the entire general population 4% do not believe in any sort of god.
Now according to your statistic
while only 4% of the general population does not believe in a god, those who have spent the most time studying count among them a whopping 15% who do not believe in a god.
This would lead one to assume that there is a correlation between study at least, if not intelligence, and not believing in god.
You are correct that no one "chooses" their beliefs. After that, your response pretty much departs reality, as you seem to be arguing that intelligence, in and of itself, compels people to disbelief in God. Without going into a lengthy examination of why that premise is patently false, let me just point out a fact that shows any critical thinker it is:
There is no reason in the world to suppose that people somehow became instantly more "intelligent" this side of the Enlightenment than they were just the other side of it, when atheism was virtually unknown among Western intelligencia. One may argue that before the Enlightenment era all the institutions of higher learning were controlled by religion, but that argument cuts both ways (today, atheism predominates at this same level of education!), and either edge of that sword cuts against your premise that it's intelligence, simpliciter, that produces disbelief in God. There is therefore no reason I can see to accept the truth of your premise as I understand it, without first truning off our "critical thinking" faculty.
To me it seems simple. Intelligence used to be one's "ticket" into a theistic environment that, surprisingly enough, generally produced theists. Today it's one's ticket into an atheistic environment that, shockingly, produces a great many atheists. Thus your premise that it's intelligence that drives atheism and a lack of it that dirves theism is at odds with both history and logic.
You are correct that no one "chooses" their beliefs. After that, your response pretty much departs reality, as you seem to be arguing that intelligence, in and of itself, compels people to disbelief in God.
I'm simply stating a fact; that nearly every study conducted shows a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. If you want to dispute study results, be my guest, but I'm not the person you need to debate in that case.
"Almost every single study conducted demonstrates that the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to believe in a god or gods."
If that is true than why is the person that is running America right now, a Christian ? Being a Christian or believing in something is totally different from actually being intelligent. Also they're different types of intelligents so you have to be more specific.
There is a difference between a trend and a rule. There are plenty of intelligent believers and plenty of stupid atheists, but on average it is true. You can easily verify it for yourself.
If that is true than why is the person that is running America right now, a Christian ?
Obama may actually be a Christian, or he could have realized its a really bad political move to publicly declare atheism. Also, being the president doesn't automatically necessitate intelligence.
Being a Christian or believing in something is totally different from actually being intelligent.
Believing in something with no evidence or highly questionable evidence is generally not related to high intelligence
Believing in something with no evidence=low intelligence? Notice the debate. You have to believe religious people look down on critical thinking with no evidence or highly questionable evidence. Nice point.
"Almost every single study conducted demonstrates that the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to believe in a god or gods. If there is a god, he's given those who are intelligent enough not to believe in him, a severe disadvantage."
If this is true than all atheist must be smarter than Albert Einstein, but this is not the case. Einstein believed in a God and even worked at shaping the Jewish race. A man whose name is a synonym for genius.
Dictionary. com
2.One having genius, sense 1;gifted person, prodigy, adept, virtuoso, master, maestro, mastermind, intellectual, Einstein, mental giant, Wunderkind (German), brain, intellect, rocket scientist, whiz, wizard*; see also artist 2, author 1, master 3.
You are speaking as though the existence of someone who is a believer and also a genius somehow disproves multiple independent studies. I am not sure if this is a deliberate strawman or a genuine misunderstanding? I have never seen a study that claims that every single nonbeliever is smarter than every single believer; such a claim would be easily disprovable. The ones I have seen merely compile statistical averages.
Also, I think your presentation of Einstein as believing in 'a God' is contextually dishonest but I suppose that is another debate entirely as my argument would still be valid if Einstein had been a born-again Christian as fanatical as they come.
If this is true than all atheist must be smarter than Albert Einstein, but this is not the case. Einstein believed in a God and even worked at shaping the Jewish race. A man whose name is a synonym for genius.
Do you understand the word likely?
This kind of supports the sentence you quoted, how you seem unable to understand what a statistical correlation means yet you believe in god.
I have read three different biographies on Einstein, they all claim he believed in a God.
Did you try following up on them? He believed in Spinoza's god. He wasn't a theist in the conventional sense. He was not an atheist. Great minds are rarely orthodox.
Also, I see you still failed to grasp what likely means in statistics.
Christian's repent when they do something wrong and they know that no matter how many times they try to repent they will always be at fault, because they are not worthy.
That sounds psychotic, quite frankly, to be plagued by the idea that you are permanently unworthy. It is cult conditioning.
You are saying that religious people think that they exclude themselves from other people and act as if they are going to be living a unending life? Christian's know that they have to earn their rightful place if they want to be in heaven.
Correct. That is how a large percentage of Christians tend to behave, as though they are not a part of the world.
There is no immortality however. How old are you now? I'm guessing that you're a teenager, which means that in ideal circumstances you'll die in about eighty years. Probably, however, you'll die of an accident long before then. That is the end, you'll never have life again once you die, everything that you were will cease and only memories of you will remain.
Choosing to believe in God does not make you create an illusion of immortality, in fact it lowers all your defenses and you have to learn to accept anything that happens in your life.
It is a coping mechanism. Life is random, full of death, and our universe is very intimidating. The answers to life are complicated and you'll probably never truly understand them. Therefore you believe in a primitive god, because it makes it easier to accept life.
Religious people don't look down on critical thinking, they do this as well. What they do look down upon, is atheist that claim only they do critical thinking.
Religious people don't look down on critical thinking, they do this as well. What they do look down upon, is atheist that claim only they do critical thinking.
Because on this website you have been nothing but a pillar of critical thinking...
There is no way you have any friends that believe in God and so you must be talking about fellow atheist. I'm glad you finally realized that atheism is a religion.
The Question outlining the motion of this debate might seem biased, but this is exactly the reason it has been put in such a way because it's common practice that some people immediately take the defensive stance due to what the motion is claiming.
It's usually theists who take the defensive or even aggressive stance to shield their beliefs from further criticism.
Now having said this, to understand what this motion is claiming is to understand the core concept and definition of "indoctrination", which is how the majority of religious people come to be in their respective religions.
Indoctrination is a system that is teaching a set of principles and in the process of doing this, permits very little room or even credibility for individual thought because the doctrine asserts that it's principles are superior to individual opinion because it asserts claims of divine inspiration.
The "logic" in any causal chain of events leads to a first cause. Therefore, the notion that there is no "logic for God", "God" being partly defined as the First Cause for everything caused to exist, is false.
True, there are concepts that are and have been attached to God as the Creator (i.e, ultimate cause) of everything caused to exist (i.e, every "event") that on some cursory review seem to be illogical, but that doesn't mean that God is illogical, or that people who believe in the Creator are maintaining an "illogical" belief. An "illogical" belief isn't one that can't be proven to be necessarily true by pure logic. If that were the case, then virtually every belief you or anyone else held to be true would be "illogical". Rather a belief is "illogical", in common parlance, when it is held contrary to the preponderance of the evidence against it and/or for it's opposite proposition. Thus, for example, whether atheism, agnosticism, or theism is "illogical" depends upon the evidence for and against each. As we've just seen above, there is one piece of "logical" evidence for the Creator in the fact that temporal events manifest a causal chain that "logically" entails a cause that is itself "causeless". Even the supposition that the chain of temporal events is infinitely long in the past (an idea with lots of it's own "logical" problems!) doesn't remove the logical entailment for a first cause, anymore than the number "one" removes or disproves "logically" that the set of possible intergers isn't infinite. Where then is the counter evidence against the existence of such a First Cause that enjoys a similarly strong "logical" provenence.
Not that we look down at critical thinking, but we rely on the word of God.
It isn't the word of god, for starters. That religious people insist it is in spite of obvious reasoning, indicates a lack of critical thinking on their behalf. That they seek to undermine science indicates a hostility towards reasoning.
It isn't the word of god, for starters. That religious people insist it is in spite of obvious reasoning, indicates a lack of critical thinking on their behalf. That they seek to undermine science indicates a hostility towards reasoning.
I am not some religious wing nut as you obviously assumed. Science is important as religion.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein
I made no assumptions about you. Check my language more carefully.
Whatever??
Religion has little importance except as a means of achieving social and cultural cohesion.
So, there is a purpose to religion.
Science is what has saved our species.
When did I say that it didn't, strawman.
So what he meant was: "Knowledge without passion is lame. Passion without knowledge is blind."*
Where did this come from besides out of your ass? You thought was wrong.
Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
Where did this come from besides out of your ass? You thought was wrong.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
Religion to Einstein was clearly about a reverence to the mystery of nature and our ability to understand it, it was passion for that knowledge and understanding.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
Faith (as in axiom or assumption) is not equivalent to faith (as in superstition, pet deity).