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

Religion is Anti-Intellectualism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 890 times Debate No: 77683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Religion is parasitical, conforming followers to anti-intellectualism. Recent meta-analysis demonstrates atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.* Religion encourages acceptance based purely on faith, whereas intellectualism encourages the act of questioning. Questioning dismantles religion as it has no rational answers.



In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.


3 problems with Pro's starting argument.

1) Pro says: "Religion is parasitical, conforming followers to anti-intellectualism."

Problem: Pro did not define what specific religion he/she is speaking of. How can this be a proper debate if we are going to be generalizing?

2) Pro says: "Recent meta-analysis demonstrates atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people."

Problem: Pro has made another generalization. He attributed a human reality to supposed religious doctrine. In other words, Pro is blaming an idea by the actions of people. So even if a religion(s) (Pro has not specified) were to teach its adhenerents to be intellectual and open-minded, Pro will still point fingers at the religion(s) for the few bad apples that don't happen to be intellectuals.

3) Pro says: "Religion encourages acceptance based purely on faith, whereas intellectualism encourages the act of questioning. Questioning dismantles religion as it has no rational answers."

Problem: Which religion is Pro talking about here? What if intellectualism was part of a person's religion? A religion is a set of principles and ideas, everyone has their own religion.

The debate cannot continue until the foundation is firm.

Debate Round No. 1


Religion is the blind acceptance of god(s). Intellectual conclusions are based on evidence. One would not support stricter gun control because he/she had faith in the viewpoint. No, statistical evidence would have to be provided for an intellectual to draw conclusions. The foundation of religion as a whole is blind faith no matter which specific religion. Therefore, intellectualism cannot be a part of someone's religion as religion is opposed to intellectualism. Religion does not follow intellectual, logical guidelines. Therefore, I do not understand why a generalization cannot be made about religion?

Faith and rational thought (a necessary component of intellectualism) are polar opposites. Faith is blind, it is based off of assumptions and emotion, never evidence. Faith tells you to believe without proof. Therefore, religion teaches anti-intellectualism as it discourages rational thought, questioning and the need of evidence before coming to conclusions.


In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.


It seems Pro has went on with his rambles and has not fixed the problems associated with his original argument.

Pro is making up his own claims without any evidence. He his stating his own opinions without backing them up.

He is basically saying X is X because he wants it to be. That is not a way to debate, especially intellectually.

Pro has not even defined what is religion.

I will argue that religion has nothing to do with whether you are intellectual or not. An intellectual according to Wikipedia is "...a man or woman who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains authority from public opinion."[1]

There are and were many many religious people, in the past and today, who are critical thinkers, those who engage in much thought and reflection upon the society that they live in. Religious people of all faiths have written books of knowledge about their society, problems, and solutions.

And there is no doubt that religious people have proposed solutions for problems that exist in the society, and many of these solutions are used today under different labels.

The Pro claiming that intellectualism is only exclusive to non-religious people is a very high form of arrogance, and anybody who agrees with Pro is far from being an intellectual.

I'll give one example. Take a look at the Islamic Golden Age. That was an era before the Rennaiscance where many scholars and scientists of the Islamic religion in the middle east rose to great heights in power and intelligence.

As Jeffery Watkins puts it, "The result was an era of stunning intellectual and cultural achievements."[2]

The Islamic Golden Age advanced many things in the world:
Arts & Literature
The Sciences
Economic Achievements
Law & More.

Some specific achievements were in the mathematics field. Algebra and the Algorithm were contributed majorly by the Muslim mathematician, Al-Khwarizmi. The words Algebra and Algorithm come from the Arabic language. Algebra = Al-Jabr for example.

The reason we have computers today is because of the work of Muslims, religious folks, during the Islamic Golden Age.

I'm not going to dive too much into specifics, if the Pro desires, he can do his research on this Golden Era of human civilization and the contributions it brought to the world.

The final point is basically, intellectualism is open, and anybody can be an intellectual regardless of what you faith you believe in. Religion does not stop a person from being an intellectual.

I highly advise Pro to fix his arguments and provide evidence for what he wants to prove.



Debate Round No. 2


religionkills forfeited this round.


IslamAhmadiyya forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Yes..But so called intellectualism has the same "potential". Intellectualism is beleif. The intellectuals wants to get rid of religion. Religion wants to get rid of intellectualism.. pure darwinisme as it has always existet. Always will exist. Because it is the way/rull all life must follow-
Posted by TyroneShelton 3 years ago
I honestly think the worst thing religion does is take a child, and have a trusted adult tell him he may burn for eternity if he doesnt satisfy a God. That and the homophobia in Africa all the dumbass baptists bring
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Faith required that you believe despite an absence of expected evidence or despite the presence of conflicting evidence. But how do we detect lies? Through the absence of expected evidence or the presence of conflicting evidence. The very things that faith demanded we disregard. Any one with intelligence would know that a system that protected lies so efficiently would lay humans open to just about any conceivable abuse. Human vanity, ignorance, fear of the unknown, and the fear of knowing are among the last reasons anyone still believes in a God. The more you know the less you believe.
Posted by Commondebator 3 years ago
This is honestly a very stupid and insulting debate
No votes have been placed for this debate.