CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:130
Arguments:71
Total Votes:157
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (71)

Debate Creator

Cyberdebate(37) pic



Why do religious people look down on critical thinking?

It's considered "Heresy" and "Blasphemy" in the dominant doctrines of dogma. WHY?

To many who teach and/or follow these dogmas, it's seen as a threat or immoral . WHY?

WHY in the 21st century, does this still prevail???

 

Add New Argument

Because religion is designed to suppress thought and keep people under control.

mudkipz2(358) Disputed
3 points

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.

2 points

depends on the religion

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.

Karl Marx said

Why should I care for what he said?

Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

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

Side: They Don't
2 points

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.

Side: They Don't
3 points

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!

Side: be spacific
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Are you suggesting that every religion does not share something in common which they all can be judged on?

Side: be spacific
Cyberdebate(37) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
cstamford(9) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
3 points

Because critical thinking would prove them and their beliefs to be incorrect.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
3 points

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.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
1 point

Well said. It is always much better to deal critically with the other guy's argument than it is to "define" it out of bounds.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
3 points

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?

Side: Fairness and Judgement
2 points

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.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
eztone123(15) Disputed
0 points

"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.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
3 points

Choosing to believe in God

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.

Side: Fairness and Judgement
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: they are scared of critical thinking
2 points

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.

Side: They Don't
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

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...

Side: they are scared of critical thinking
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

This is your opinion and not fact. I keep forgetting, facts are things that one can disregard when it is convient.

The master of deceptive reasoning uses sophistry to fight what he claims is sophistry. Wow, what genius.(sarcasm)

Side: They Don't
Cyberdebate(37) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: They Don't
2 points

The short answer to this question is Religous people are scared of critical thinking.

Side: they are scared of critical thinking

i wouldn't use the word look down i would say pity.........

since their power/confidence/support/alliance is in a living power full GOD

Side: they are scared of critical thinking
zombee(1026) Disputed
2 points

You pity the art of reflecting and evaluating our conscious understanding and ways of thinking with the hope of improving them?

Side: they are scared of critical thinking
1 point

They don't for everything but for God they do as there is no logic for God but they are not willing to believe God doesn't exsist.

Side: they are scared of critical thinking
cstamford(9) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: they are scared of critical thinking

Not that we look down at critical thinking, but we rely on the word of God.

Does that mean we still think the world is flat, no because that would be silly.

Side: You cant spell Atheists without theists
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: they are scared of critical thinking
LibertyLife(197) Disputed
2 points

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

Side: they are scared of critical thinking