Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do people believe in god because they are scared of death? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Out of interest, why is this? You tried this dodge with me as well, when I provided links to pages explaining the evidence for evolution (which you had asked for and are supposedly willing to accept). There's little sincerity in claiming that you're willing to accept evidence for evolution when you refuse to even look at it.
    Its not a dodge its just safer not to, I've accidentally opened up some untasteful links in the past so as a preference I prefer not to.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Its not a dodge its just safer not to, I've accidentally opened up some untasteful links in the past so as a preference I prefer not to.
    It will be very difficult for us to provide you with evidence of what we're trying to prove if you don't follow our links. Evolution is an enormous subject, and you can't reasonably expect us to type it all out by hand.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    I want views from both religious people and non-religious people.
    No. people don't believe in God because they're scared of death.

    HEAVEN was invented for that
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Its not a dodge its just safer not to, I've accidentally opened up some untasteful links in the past so as a preference I prefer not to.
    What are you worried about? it's a youtube link!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Oh ye from the Richard Dawkins school of faith.... I believe I am quite ok in my use of the word 'realised'.

    I would say 'realize' is the wrong term... believing in an ideology which has zero evidence in its favour isn't a realization it's a delusion when referring to evolution, which in my opinion is the biggest hoax known to mankind and has captured millions hook, line and sinker.

    I would ask you to re read your post and identify the narrative tone throughout. Can you recognise superiority and of trying to belittle my opinions? It hasn't offended me, neither am I upset by it, just a little bemused.

    ...."You haven't really answered the question by the way... The OP is asking why you've convinced yourself that an imaginary magic sky daddy exists. Saying "because I know" (which is essentially what you have done) doesn't answer the question it just avoids it."......

    That wasn't the OP question.

    Have you ever looked at the transcendence and immanence of God?

    'despite said beliefs having enormous amounts of convincing evidence falsifying them' what?
    LMAO! That explains it all! A creationist!!!

    Firstly I must point out that the word delusion cannot be applied to evolution in any way or form. Since evolution has reproducible evidence supporting it it can never fall into the category of "delusion" as a delusion has no reproducible evidence. Religion is a delusion as it has no evidence supporting it, evolution is not because it does have evidence supporting it. Furthermore, you have explicitly said that "realization" is the wrong word only when referring to evolution (even if that's not what you meant it's what the grammar in your sentence says). This is utter rubbish. The word "realization" is the wrong word when referring to a delusion, which evolution is not (as I have explained above). Ironically it is the wrong word when referring to religion, way to go nullifying your own point :P

    Let me indulge you for a minute with some proof of evolution:

    http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011...cientists-say/
    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.abstract
    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...l.pgen.0030090
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...aptation-34539
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...02929707628389
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...t-popular.html
    http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-we...er-and-heavier
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...01-Tibet_N.htm
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/sc...olve.html?_r=0
    http://australianmuseum.net.au/how-h...first-appeared
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hromosomes.png
    http://www.amnh.org/var/ezflow_site/..._6_c_2.jpg.jpg
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/w...es-300x255.jpg
    http://ideonexus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/047.png
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BKHqDp9T7Q...%A7%C3%A3o.jpg

    This details evolution of our species, homo sapiens, but there are countless examples more for both our species and every other species out there. I've tried to avoid the academic papers as much as possible as the language in them is well... very obscure to those not part of the scientific community.

    I recommend that you read the book "Oxygen, the Molecule that Made the World." The author has done a very good job of detailing and explaining the mechanisms of evolution and the possible origins of multicellular life.

    I also need to address your idea that my tone is superiority and that I'm trying to belittle you. Please excuse how this next sentence is going to sound, I don't mean it in an arrogant way I'm only stating the facts. As a scientist I have superior knowledge of the inner workings of the universe to yours. Clearly you think that evolution (a proven fact) is false because you do not possess the level of knowledge required to establish that it's true for yourself, you have not bothered to research it in any detail and you have chosen to listen to a priest instead of those who actually know about these things.

    Now, while that does sound like I'm trying to project myself as a superior being or something along those lines, I can assure you that I am not. I am merely pointing out the actual facts about this situation. In other areas I know far less than you do about sciences, but here you're on my turf where I know more. Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm sure you're able to talk for hours about the humanities or other such subjects - which I know nothing of, it's just that now the ball's in my court.

    As for your point about me supposedly belittling you, I'd like to call you up on using the all time classic argument of people in denial. The overused "you're being mean to me" trick. It's a rather bog standard way of redirecting people's attention away from the fact that your arguments have been completely annihilated by someone with overwhelming evidence and facts to back up their points. It's pretty successful most of the time since people are compelled by etiquette to cluster around the offended person(s) and back them up. The real beauty of it is that your opponent must then fend off the hoard of people who are pretending to be angry and try to preserve their reputation while you get to sit back and feel smug about how you avoided defeat by changing the subject.

    Unfortunately for you, I'm not at all bothered about etiquette and reputation so it hasn't worked. As such you have only succeeded in belittling yourself, as it reveals a childish refusal to accept the truth whenever this manipulation attempt fails. To be honest though, almost everyone unknowingly does it so don't feel bad.

    As a final piece of advice I suggest you always research topics in extreme detail before entering a debate about them, or you're just going to end up with egg on your face like you have now. Despite how I'm probably coming across, I am in fact impressed that you actually asked about evidence. Most creationists avoid this as they know it will only lead to their defeat. Perhaps there's hope for you yet
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gul89)
    hahahahaha your so funny why dont u go live in a zoo and socialize with your cousins over there, you might find love there aswell
    you're*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Another thread that changes subject?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)

    As a final piece of advice I suggest you always research topics in extreme detail before entering a debate about them, or you're just going to end up with egg on your face like you have now. Despite how I'm probably coming across, I am in fact impressed that you actually asked about evidence. Most creationists avoid this as they know it will only lead to their defeat. Perhaps there's hope for you yet
    I guess you've taken your own advice and researched topics of religion in great detail before debating? Not that you want to end up with egg on your face 😁

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)

    Let me indulge you for a minute with some proof of evolution:

    http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011...cientists-say/

    I broke my rule and opened the first link.

    Are you serious? This is not proof of evolution, saying that women are having children at a younger age is evidence. Hundreds of years ago women married young and had children young, this is just a line going up and down on a statistics chart over the decades. Some years younger, some years older.

    Must try harder.

    One of the comments below the article says either the scientists or the reporters are reaching for an explanation they hope to be true, and that their personal belief system needs.

    That makes either the conclusions of the study bad science, or the write up bad reporting.

    And someone else says this article proves absolutely nothing about anything.

    And that was just the first link. I don't hold out much hope for the rest.


    Anyway all this is causing a derailment of the OP's thread or is it an evolutionary development in observation?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    LMAO! That explains it all! A creationist!!!

    Firstly I must point out that the word delusion cannot be applied to evolution in any way or form. Since evolution has reproducible evidence supporting it it can never fall into the category of "delusion" as a delusion has no reproducible evidence. Religion is a delusion as it has no evidence supporting it, evolution is not because it does have evidence supporting it. Furthermore, you have explicitly said that "realization" is the wrong word only when referring to evolution (even if that's not what you meant it's what the grammar in your sentence says). This is utter rubbish. The word "realization" is the wrong word when referring to a delusion, which evolution is not (as I have explained above). Ironically it is the wrong word when referring to religion, way to go nullifying your own point :P

    Let me indulge you for a minute with some proof of evolution:

    http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011...cientists-say/
    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.abstract
    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...l.pgen.0030090
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...aptation-34539
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...02929707628389
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...t-popular.html
    http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-we...er-and-heavier
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...01-Tibet_N.htm
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/sc...olve.html?_r=0
    http://australianmuseum.net.au/how-h...first-appeared
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hromosomes.png
    http://www.amnh.org/var/ezflow_site/..._6_c_2.jpg.jpg
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/w...es-300x255.jpg
    http://ideonexus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/047.png
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BKHqDp9T7Q...%A7%C3%A3o.jpg

    This details evolution of our species, homo sapiens, but there are countless examples more for both our species and every other species out there. I've tried to avoid the academic papers as much as possible as the language in them is well... very obscure to those not part of the scientific community.

    I recommend that you read the book "Oxygen, the Molecule that Made the World." The author has done a very good job of detailing and explaining the mechanisms of evolution and the possible origins of multicellular life.

    I also need to address your idea that my tone is superiority and that I'm trying to belittle you. Please excuse how this next sentence is going to sound, I don't mean it in an arrogant way I'm only stating the facts. As a scientist I have superior knowledge of the inner workings of the universe to yours. Clearly you think that evolution (a proven fact) is false because you do not possess the level of knowledge required to establish that it's true for yourself, you have not bothered to research it in any detail and you have chosen to listen to a priest instead of those who actually know about these things.

    Now, while that does sound like I'm trying to project myself as a superior being or something along those lines, I can assure you that I am not. I am merely pointing out the actual facts about this situation. In other areas I know far less than you do about sciences, but here you're on my turf where I know more. Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm sure you're able to talk for hours about the humanities or other such subjects - which I know nothing of, it's just that now the ball's in my court.

    As for your point about me supposedly belittling you, I'd like to call you up on using the all time classic argument of people in denial. The overused "you're being mean to me" trick. It's a rather bog standard way of redirecting people's attention away from the fact that your arguments have been completely annihilated by someone with overwhelming evidence and facts to back up their points. It's pretty successful most of the time since people are compelled by etiquette to cluster around the offended person(s) and back them up. The real beauty of it is that your opponent must then fend off the hoard of people who are pretending to be angry and try to preserve their reputation while you get to sit back and feel smug about how you avoided defeat by changing the subject.

    Unfortunately for you, I'm not at all bothered about etiquette and reputation so it hasn't worked. As such you have only succeeded in belittling yourself, as it reveals a childish refusal to accept the truth whenever this manipulation attempt fails. To be honest though, almost everyone unknowingly does it so don't feel bad.

    As a final piece of advice I suggest you always research topics in extreme detail before entering a debate about them, or you're just going to end up with egg on your face like you have now. Despite how I'm probably coming across, I am in fact impressed that you actually asked about evidence. Most creationists avoid this as they know it will only lead to their defeat. Perhaps there's hope for you yet
    There's no point in bothering with evidence for evolution with this member. We've provided it all before and he/she just continues to say it's a hoax.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Racoon)
    And that was just the first link. I don't hold out much hope for the rest.
    Yes, and that's a totally non-fallacious, non-dodging statement. :rolleyes:

    I second Plantagenet Crown on this; despite your claims that you're open to evidence, you aren't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Yes, and that's a totally non-fallacious, non-dodging statement. :rolleyes:

    I second Plantagenet Crown on this; despite your claims that you're open to evidence, you aren't.

    And I don't second you on seconding him.

    No one has provided evidence. Everything hinges on ifs, buts, maybes and the old adage 'over the course of millions/billions of years'.

    Someone earlier said there are plenty of new species(kind/type), I asked what and got no reply.

    Someone else said a virus, given enough time, can become an elephant.



    You won't click on the link but its things like this.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUa8lXyIwFE
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Racoon)
    No one has provided evidence. Everything hinges on ifs, buts, maybes and the old adage 'over the course of millions/billions of years'.

    Someone earlier said there are plenty of new species(kind/type), I asked what and got no reply.

    Someone else said a virus, given enough time, can become an elephant.
    This is garbled at best. Peroxidation supplied a wealth of evidence; you skimmed one link (evident by your comments about it) and wrote off the others on the basis of your incorrect view of the first one. Which is ironic: for somebody who (apparently) doesn't accept anything that he hasn't seen with his own eyes, you're astoundingly resistant to actually subjecting your eyes to the information.

    Your insistence on evidence of the kind that you can observe with your own eyes is an irony in itself, given your religious views. Anybody here with half a brain and the ability to use it can see through your charade.

    You won't click on the link but its things like this.....
    As a matter of fact, I did click on the link (unlike some people whose eyes are apparently too sensitive to be looking at anything on the Internet). I certainly wasn't surprised by the anti-scientific gibberish presented.

    Like I've said before: you're not open to evidence, despite your claims. You have refused to look at evidence from the finest minds at the finest universities in the world, in favour of looking at the 'evidence' of a clearly biased source with a vested interest in promoting the denial of science.

    Barring insanity, this can only be a clear-cut case of confirmation bias on your part. You might feel pretty special, thinking that you're immune to a giant conspiracy that has somehow taken in, I don't know, virtually everyone who actually studies the subject, but that doesn't make your point. It shows that you're an anti-intellectual with little to no scientific education who likes to feel persecuted by a consensus for reasons best known to himself.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    No one has provided evidence.
    What do YOU call evidence?

    Some truth by "divine revelation" in the Old Testament that the heavens and earth, and all the animals on it were created by God in six days and on the seventh he rested?

    Or some garbling of that in the Koran?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    I guess you've taken your own advice and researched topics of religion in great detail before debating? Not that you want to end up with egg on your face 😁

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have indeed. I have read the quran, several versions of the bible and the torah as well as attending various religious services and ceremonies. I have even read "academic" papers about creationism, written by creationists, such as "doctor" Kent Hovind (how he got a PhD is beyond me).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    There's no point in bothering with evidence for evolution with this member. We've provided it all before and he/she just continues to say it's a hoax.
    True, but if we can silence even a single progress-hindering moron we'll be doing the world a favor.


    (Original post by Racoon)
    I broke my rule and opened the first link.

    Are you serious? This is not proof of evolution, saying that women are having children at a younger age is evidence. Hundreds of years ago women married young and had children young, this is just a line going up and down on a statistics chart over the decades. Some years younger, some years older.

    Must try harder.

    One of the comments below the article says either the scientists or the reporters are reaching for an explanation they hope to be true, and that their personal belief system needs.

    That makes either the conclusions of the study bad science, or the write up bad reporting.

    And someone else says this article proves absolutely nothing about anything.

    And that was just the first link. I don't hold out much hope for the rest.


    Anyway all this is causing a derailment of the OP's thread or is it an evolutionary development in observation?
    I suppose expecting you to understand the science behind that article (even if it was written in layman's terms) was a tall order. I had expected you to display more maturity and common sense though, seeing you using the comments of the academically ignorant was disappointing to say the least. Allow me to explain this to you; scientist who spends their life researching and studying things that almost 100% of the earth's population cannot even fathom -> reliable source. Random ignorant member of the public who struggles with GCSE science -> 0 academic credibility.

    The academic arena is a terribly dangerous place for new hypotheses. All ideas must pass through it in order to be considered plausible but only the best make it back out. It is the most ruthless scrutiny anything can be subjected to - a graveyard of bad/incorrect ideas. The brightest minds of our entire species poke and prod each idea relentlessly until it is either utterly destroyed or cannot be disproven with the current collective knowledge of mankind. Evolution has been through this countless times and has been altered but remained uncontested. Even now researchers are discovering more and more proof of this idea.

    People with einsteinian IQs and access to the wealth of knowledge that our species has gained have proven that evolution happens. These people are far more qualified to talk about the origins and development of life than a bunch of stone age soothsayers. They also happen to be of the age when people thought the earth was flat and that the sun was a god - which you have probably accepted to be false, yet you cling to their archaic utterly ridiculous idea that everything was created as is in an instant by a magical sky daddy. In short, if people with IQs so far above yours that it's like talking to an intellectual version of Mt Everest say something scientific, just accept that they know what they're talking about instead of actively trying to hinder the progress of mankind by getting in their way.

    Those comments are also referring to scientists - people who's job it is to evaluate all data in an unbiased and logical manner. There would be no bias from any scientist worth their salt. I should also point out that papers are all subjected to the process of peer review. Other academics assess and scrutinize the papers so any confirmation bias (if any) is eliminated. In fact, bias is taken so seriously by the scientific community that things like manipulating the results in your favor or rigging the experiment always result in the culprits entire career abruptly ending. Don't try pulling the "bias results" trick with a scientist. It never works.

    For the record, the reason religions aren't taught as science in schools is that when it was their turn in the academic arena they were totally annihilated by logic, common sense and an arsenal of evidence contradicting them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    I have indeed. I have read the quran, several versions of the bible and the torah as well as attending various religious services and ceremonies. I have even read "academic" papers about creationism, written by creationists, such as "doctor" Kent Hovind (how he got a PhD is beyond me).
    I'm not sure that can be described as research in great detail, but perhaps you aren't going to exhaust every way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)

    For the record, the reason religions aren't taught as science in schools is that when it was their turn in the academic arena they were totally annihilated by logic, common sense and an arsenal of evidence contradicting them.
    Wait, what? Religion isn't taught as a science mostly because it doesn't follow the scientific method. Not like that automatically rules out Religion from having any truth, unless you don't have a brain and follow the logical positivist route. In which case you'll be ruling out history too.

    But if you are going to talk about religion in the academic arena, then you've misrepresented it, for philosophy of religion is alive and well. You show me where logic was shown to annihilate religion in any philosophical journal, even the strongly secular ones.

    When you say evidence contradicting religion, it's seems you have a very narrow, specific idea of religion and then wish to paint religion as a whole the same. (I accidently replied in the post before but it was supposed to go here)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    When you say evidence contradicting religion, it's seems you have a very narrow, specific idea of religion and then wish to paint religion as a whole the same. (I accidently replied in the post before but it was supposed to go here)
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not at all. I'm using religion as a blanket term.

    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    Religion isn't taught as a science mostly because it doesn't follow the scientific method. Not like that automatically rules out Religion from having any truth, unless you don't have a brain and follow the logical positivist route.
    It's not taught as science because religious views contradict scientific facts. There is no point in teaching something that is fundamentally wrong. I know your friends in the "intelligent design" movement would disagree, but opinions do not hold any value when dealing with facts.

    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    In which case you'll be ruling out history too.
    No I wouldn't. History and the sciences are mostly unrelated subjects. Besides, history does in fact follow the scientific method. The only difference is that it's applied to different events.

    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    But if you are going to talk about religion in the academic arena, then you've misrepresented it, for philosophy of religion is alive and well. You show me where logic was shown to annihilate religion in any philosophical journal, even the strongly secular ones.
    Philosophy =/= science. Please do not insult me by putting me in the same bracket as philosophers. Scientists come up with theories based on observations made and then rigorously test them to either confirm or falsify the theory. Philosophers come up with opinionated ideas to questions with no answers and then discuss them among themselves. There's a HUGE difference. Besides, we aren't discussing philosophy here we're discussing facts and the academic arena I was referring to was the scientific community. Please stay on topic.

    (Original post by Slipandsquirm)
    You show me where logic was shown to annihilate religion in any philosophical journal, even the strongly secular ones.
    I don't read philosophical journals because IMO floppy subjects with no definite answers are a waste of time as they do not help to build the collective knowledge of mankind or to stimulate progress. I can however direct you to Dr Mason's (thunderf00t's) youtube channel where he does a brilliant series on disproving creationism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
    He provides a number of very entertaining and easy to understand proofs that creationism is wrong, hopefully he can explain things better than I can.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 16, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.