The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Practising an organised religion is a hinderance to human intellect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 60399
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




My argument is that practising an organised religion leads to a suppression/hinderance of human intellect.

An easy definition of 'organised religion' : a set of formal rules and procedures derived from an ancient scripture (Bible, Qur'an, Veda's, Guru Granth Sahib, Torah etc.).

I will take a pro position on this and challenge any arguments that rebut.


I accept. Please state your arguments as to why practicing an organized religion is hindering human intellect.
Debate Round No. 1


The idea was to rebut against Con's arguments. Nevertheless...

Organised religions promote the belief in one book, and that one book as the sole truth that has revelation about this character named 'God' and/or other deities. You are not a follower of that particular religion unless you believe this (according to the book).

The majority of these books are quite fictional, and do not place much emphasis on the individual to learn and discover outside of the scope of this. Followers are inclined to not utilise modern tools of science and logic to confirm some theories and revelations presented to them in these books, perhaps in some organised religions- not permitted to.


God could ave definitely existed:

In the beginning, there was nothing but the black hole singularity according to the big bang theory. This is as far back as we know. All of the matter/energy in the universe was stored inside the singularity. Some choose to argue that time was brought upon by the big bang, so there would be time for god to exist. To this I say, what more is time than a dimension? How does one rule out the existence of a creator simply because he did not exist in this dimension? An intelligent designer could have existed outside of the singularity and created it using just his will. It would not make any sense for the creator of everything to be limited by existence within a dimension. It is plausible to believe that the universe must have a cause based on these odds, like the source says, the idea that all of these would each work out together so perfectly is about the odds of you selecting one single subatomic particle correctly at random from all the particles in the universe.

Many Scientists and intelligent people are of faith or were driven by faith- Just to name a few, Issac Newton, Galileo Galilei, George Washington Carver, E.T. Whittaker, Max Planck, Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla etc.

The list goes on and on.

It is futile to argue that scientific discovery is yielded by faith considering most scientific discovery was from those of faith.

Heck, even The big bang theory which we base our scientific undertanding of the universe on was founded by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic Preist.

To the contrary of what my opponent believes, many people of fath are very interested in science and their belief in a creator only motivates them.

Back to Pro

Debate Round No. 2


I absolutely agree, especially in regard to time being nothing more than a dimension, as per Einstein's theory of the existence of multiple dimensions.

You are failing to address the point though. Of course there is a cause behind the universe, just like there is a cause for the existence for us and everything in nature. The question humans want to know through religion/science is how far that cause actually goes. I am not ruling out the existence of some force that has led to our existence.

The argument is about practices in religion that restrict our learning about these matters. I see that you are a Christian from your profile, and I am not attempting to offend you, but perhaps I can present some arguments in a familiarised context.

We must ask, where is the line drawn where you stop 'becoming a Christian'? I would take a safe assumption and say when your personal belief system drifts far enough that there is little relevance to what is prescribed in the Bible. You believe in the Bible as the word of God, and that Jesus was the son of God who came to Earth and sacrificed himself for us. As a Christian you would also believe in scripture such as "I permit no woman to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent" - 1 Timothy 2:12. There is scripture like this and hundreds more which are extremely unpopular and not read by the modern Christian. As a believer of the Bible, do you then cherry pick suitable passages which align with your current life or as an explanation to certain theory?

While I understand the Bible is not a scientific handbook, here are a couple of questions I have for you-
- Does the story of Genesis fit in with evolutionary biology and the big bang theory?
- Where is the empirical evidence for the 'great flood' that occurred?
- Could these events be metaphors for actual evolutionary progress?

That is Christianity, but in religions such as Islam, it is forbidden to accept any sort of truth provided from other texts. For many Muslims the Qur'an acts as a precedent over any claim that is made. There was a case where Professor Richard Dawkins visited an Islamic school where the students were convinced that salt water and fresh water could not mix, simply because it said so in the Qur'an, but did not conduct and scientific experiments to prove or disprove that. A clear example of how organised religion promotes the belief in this, so it is not futile to argue that scientific discovery is yielded by faith just on a selection of pioneering scientific individuals only.

I think religious texts contain some great knowledge and morals, some of which is applicable to real life, and some which is fiction. It would be a hindrance to human intellect if the religious scripture's are one's sole source

I absolutely agree on the point where people of faith or those driven by faith were intelligent. By questioning the validity of their faith, many discovered things that would oppose beliefs prescribed in their texts in which they believe in. For example, Tesla derived many ancient Vedic principles and influences within his work, but was not a practising Hindu that offered statue deities several flowers and fasted two days a week to discover this. I don't think that would substantiate him to become a Hindu or a man of faith in a God- more so utilising ancient knowledge of energy written in the Vedas - which a devout Christian or Muslim might be reluctant to accept?

Out of curiosity though, there is some minor evidence from Sumerian culture that refers to the Annunaki, an alien race which supposedly was involved in altering our DNA from the hominid species, crafting humans as a result. Most of the evidence aligns with several biblical passages and other belief systems presented in ancient India, Greece, Iran, Europe and Australia. IF on the premise there was suitable empirical evidence, would you be willing to accept highly intelligent extraterrestrial beings as our creators as opposed to the 'god' written in the Bible and the relevant stories?

I suppose that is the main point I was trying to make from this argument. Is that people are so distracted from things like literal interpretation of these scriptures, pointless practices embedded culturally over time, that they do not study the actual knowledge about the world. Especially considering all the great tools of science we have today to answer the question, there are many questions that can be answered that could not in the past. This is probably the best way I could word it!



ricksterpr0 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ricksterpr0 3 years ago
sorry, I missed my last round I have been busy with work, please vote for my opponent I apologize
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seems not to have fully read the R1 from Pro, though the way Pro phrased it was different than "normal" so I might understand why that is. But in the end, Con failed to address Pro's arguments, particularly the longest, last one due to his forfeit. And Con had presumptive BoP. I might be inclined to give it a presumption of sharing, given that Pro didn't quite make the BoP explicit enough, but either way, Con didn't really fulfill his burden in the face of Pro's case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.