What makes people irrational thinkers?

[SlowCalculations]

I have been thinking lately when it comes to how people become rational thinkers. It seems that some people are born questioning everything 
and it never really goes away it may be repressed, but doesn't leave allowing them to eventually escape. Then there are some people who seem to not have that spark of curiosity. Here's a short story that brought this thought to my mind: I was a person who questioned even when I was superstitious, I always doubted my own beliefs and it led me to atheism and rationality on its own. But I had a friend who if you gave her a fake video of a ghost and it's obvious it's being done by another person she'll believe it. It doesn't even have to be a ghost either it could be a simple as a fake cooking video and she'll believe it. Questioning to her was always "Overthinking" and if you were overthinking it led to suffering. She wasn't a person who went to church very often but her family was religious and very harmful.  I got older and wiser and as much as I tried to help her turn the perspective around she never changed. While I was moving forward she chose to stay behind no matter how much logic or reason was given. It was never enough. Sometimes it was willing ignorance other times it was just ignorance. I never figured it out or learned to wrap my head around it. Why is it some people even from a young age just refuse to think for themselves? 
Even when they're not caught up in church-going?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I read somewhere that human beings are not so much rational creatures as rational-ising creature. We have the ability to rationalise literally any behaviour which leads to getting something we want.

It's also been written that in any conflict between reason and emotion, emotion will almost always win.

Break down your daily behaviour . Then work how often you made a conscious decision.

That's about the best I can do without going into some philosophical explanation, at which I do not excel

[Belacqua]

I always doubted my own beliefs and it led me to atheism and rationality on its own.

At this point, do you still doubt your own beliefs? Have you continued to question what you hold to be true? Or do you feel that now you've arrived at atheism and rationalism you've arrived at the destination?

Why is it some people even from a young age just refuse to think for themselves? 

I want to be sure that when we use the phrase "refuse to think for themselves" we're not just using it as a synonym for "refuse to agree with me." A lot of people think for themselves and reach different conclusions. 

As for why people stop questioning, I suppose it's common for people to find a kind of web or system of ideas which they find sufficient. It seems to describe the world as they see it. If they hear about something that doesn't fit with their system, they can just declare that it wasn't reported correctly, or their preferred system will get around to explaining it eventually, something like that.

[Simon Moon]

I always doubted my own beliefs and it led me to atheism and rationality on its own.

At this point, do you still doubt your own beliefs? Have you continued to question what you hold to be true? Or do you feel that now you've arrived at atheism and rationalism you've arrived at the destination?

I can't speak for the OP, but for me, my athreism is a provisional position, it is not a destination. My atheism is simply the positioin that theists have not met their burden of proof, to convince me that a god or gods exist.

I am completely open to being convinced a god or gods exist, but without rational, evidence based, reasoned argument, and valed and sound logic to support the case that a god exists, how would we go about figuring out if it is true, or likely to be true? As long as theists continue to fail to provide good standards of evidence to support their claims, my atheism will continue.

And let me add, that I don't think theists have a rational reason to believe in gods. It is not that my bar is set too high, it's that theirs is set too low. The same low standards of evidence that theists use to justifiy their god beliefs, would also allow many other beliefs pass over their bar.

Until there is some other way of approaching existential claims other than rationalism (skeptitism), how else could we go about figuring out if they are true or not?

What other method do you think should be used to tell fact from fiction?

[Belacqua]

I can't speak for the OP, but for me, my athreism is a provisional position, it is not a destination.

This seems very reasonable to me, and wise.

I am completely open to being convinced a god or gods exist, but without rational, evidence based, reasoned argument, and valed and sound logic to support the case that a god exists, how would we go about figuring out if it is true, or likely to be true? As long as theists continue to fail to provide good standards of evidence to support their claims, my atheism will continue.

I think you'll see that there are two points here that can be questioned.

The first is whether or not rational evidence based reasoned argument with valid and sound logic really has failed to support the case that god exists. 

The second is whether such an approach is the only or best way to support the case that god exists. 

Believe it or not there are fascinating, non-crazy, challenging thinkers who disagree with you on both points.

And let me add, that I don't think theists have a rational reason to believe in gods. It is not that my bar is set too high, it's that theirs is set too low.

Or is set differently. It is hard to imagine, in our place, time, and social class, that sane people could disagree with us, but this is what questioning one's own beliefs consists of.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

At this point, do you still doubt your own beliefs? Have you continued to question what you hold to be true? Or do you feel that now you've arrived at atheism and rationalism you've arrived at the destination?

I can't speak for the OP, but for me, my athreism is a provisional position, it is not a destination. My atheism is simply the positioin that theists have not met their burden of proof, to convince me that a god or gods exist.

I am completely open to being convinced a god or gods exist, but without rational, evidence based, reasoned argument, and valed and sound logic to support the case that a god exists, how would we go about figuring out if it is true, or likely to be true? As long as theists continue to fail to provide good standards of evidence to support their claims, my atheism will continue.

And let me add, that I don't think theists have a rational reason to believe in gods. It is not that my bar is set too high, it's that theirs is set too low. The same low standards of evidence that theists use to justifiy their god beliefs, would also allow many other beliefs pass over their bar.

Until there is some other way of approaching existential claims other than rationalism (skeptitism), how else could we go about figuring out if they are true or not?

What other method do you think should be used to tell fact from fiction?

 
"Provisional position"  Hadn't thought of it that way.

Well, I did go on a 20 year intellectual journey after I had rejected Christianity at age 20.   I did reach what I now see as an inevitable conclusion.

I like to think I will believe in god(s) if presented with empirical evidence. None such has so far been forthcoming in recorded history.
That leads me to suspect it may not occur within what is left of my lifetime.

Oh, I also reject the notion that god(s) may be argued into or out of existence.  For me, demonstration of the existence of gods must be falsifiable. Period

[Belacqua]

I like to think I will believe in god(s) if presented with empirical evidence. None such has so far been forthcoming in recorded history.
That leads me to suspect it may not occur within what is left of my lifetime.

Oh, I also reject the notion that god(s) may be argued into or out of existence.  For me, demonstration of the existence of gods must be falsifiable. Period

The criteria you use make your conclusion inevitable. 

If the OP is correct, it would be wise to question these criteria.

[SlowCalculations]

I always doubted my own beliefs and it led me to atheism and rationality on its own.

At this point, do you still doubt your own beliefs? Have you continued to question what you hold to be true? Or do you feel that now you've arrived at atheism and rationalism you've arrived at the destination?

Why is it some people even from a young age just refuse to think for themselves? 

I want to be sure that when we use the phrase "refuse to think for themselves" we're not just using it as a synonym for "refuse to agree with me." A lot of people think for themselves and reach different conclusions. 

As for why people stop questioning, I suppose it's common for people to find a kind of web or system of ideas which they find sufficient. It seems to describe the world as they see it. If they hear about something that doesn't fit with their system, they can just declare that it wasn't reported correctly, or their preferred system will get around to explaining it eventually, something like that.

I'm talking about a person who believes slavery is justifiable and okay to give a brief summery of "Refuse to think for themselves" Maybe there's a better phrasing I'm not great with words yet. I'm always questioning my beliefs I'm always changing or adjusting the problem i see is "Some" people i should say don't seem to be changing or adjusting theirs is the point I'm trying to get at here. I hope that helps clarify, i do not care if people agree with me in general, I care if they don't believe in things that are harmful to groups of people. I care that they're able to make their own choices without getting stuck in what others say rather than looking into it. These are the things that concern me that i am speaking on.

[polymath257]

One thing I have learned from teaching math is that logic isn't a natural way of thinking. Even those who have an aptitude have a LOT of difficulty when it comes to coming up with and writing logical proofs. Although we like to claim that logic is the 'laws of thought', in reality, most conclusions most people arrive at are not found through logic.

Instead, people usually have intuitions that they then use some sort of 'reasoning' to justify. But the reasoning is usually NOT the reason they believe. it is the way they justify their intuitions. And their beliefs are based on those intuitions, not on logic or reasoning.

[SlowCalculations]

I like to think I will believe in god(s) if presented with empirical evidence. None such has so far been forthcoming in recorded history.
That leads me to suspect it may not occur within what is left of my lifetime.

Oh, I also reject the notion that god(s) may be argued into or out of existence.  For me, demonstration of the existence of gods must be falsifiable. Period

The criteria you use make your conclusion inevitable. 

If the OP is correct, it would be wise to question these criteria.

What does  demonstration of the existence of gods must be falsifiable.  mean as a sentence? 

---

One thing I have learned from teaching math is that logic isn't a natural way of thinking. Even those who have an aptitude have a LOT of difficulty when it comes to coming up with and writing logical proofs. Although we like to claim that logic is the 'laws of thought', in reality, most conclusions most people arrive at are not found through logic.

Instead, people usually have intuitions that they then use some sort of 'reasoning' to justify. But the reasoning is usually NOT the reason they believe. it is the way they justify their intuitions. And their beliefs are based on those intuitions, not on logic or reasoning.

Interesting, i had a teacher who once told me people are not born critical thinkers (I'm undecided) but i like to think they just don't have the tools yet. 
Would you agree or disagree just me being curious?