I wish I could be religious

+1

I don't see Christians with a picture of Darwin's face with a penis photoshopped onto his forehead. It really is a cheap shot, naffa, it really is. Keep it there if you feel that it is right.

Dear me, grow up. Darwin was quite the Christian himself at one stage of his life, though eventually he tended towards agnosticism.

If we're going to start photoshopping male genitalia on to people's heads then I can think of a perfect candidate if offense is the name of the game.

Anyway, I'm sure the majority of people who wear or use the symbol do it as a dig at Creationists and not well meaning, albeit equally deluded, Christians.
 
How do you know you didn't believe in a deity? As a baby, stuff just happens to you, and you have no idea what's going on as to begin with your senses are pretty mushy still - you may even have fluffily believed in some godlike figure with a huge and very inviting pair of boobies.

Agnostic means "I don't know" and I think that sums up babies (and scientists!) rather well :D

I dare say they are programmed in before you are born as living things need nourishment ;)
 
The nature of God is what needs discussing not human constructions to explain god such as religions, is God this grandfatherly figure or an omnipotent force of creation? , or it God a construct of our minds to explain concepts we cannot comprehend? . Are we all God in some small aspect, is everything God, like we are made up of cells, bacteria, vruses etc, are we just one small part of a universal conciousness?, Are we just banging our heads against a wall constructed of our own insecurity or are we on a journey toward universal understanding ourselves?


EDIT: I'll start another thread for this. Not really relevent to the OP
 
Last edited:
It isn't offensive - simply disappointing.

I have spent quite some time (both on this forum and to many in person) helping others to overcome their difficulties or misunderstandings with evolution. Science is not just about learning, but teaching as well, and since I am fortunate to have spent more time learning about evolution than most could reasonably consider, I feel I have an obligation to teach and spread the knowledge that I have learned.

It follows that when I see somebody taking something as beautiful as the knowledge we have gained through evolution, something which I view with utmost respect and sincerity, and using it as cheap shot to attack somebody’s religious beliefs by mocking a symbol that doesn’t even have anything to do with creationism, it makes me very disappointed and sad. Science is here to help us understand things, not to belittle those who think differently. Darwin would be rolling in his grave.

+1

I don't see Christians with a picture of Darwin's face with a penis photoshopped onto his forehead. It really is a cheap shot, naffa, it really is. Keep it there if you feel that it is right.

Wow, massive misunderstanding here. The Darwin fish isn't meant as an insult, not it's creation, nor in it's use by me. I would never intentionally 'cheap shot' religion as it were, even if I am fundamentally opposed to it's existence. It's a symbol for scientific evolution over creationism, I suppose it is mocking, slightly, but I believe creationism to be nonsense. If you don't think there are Christians that mock Darwin, or even the Darwin fish, then you're wrong because they do.

If you take the fish at it's literal meaning (which I have discovered, upon researching) 'Jesus Christ, God's son, saviour' then you're quite right, it doesn't literally have anything to do with creationism. When proclaiming belief in the sanctity of Christ, however, you must by default proclaim belief in that of his teachings and the bible, bother of which are fierce advocates and teachers of creationism.

However, when I created the sig, I didn't intend the symbol to be interpreted as a cheap shot, a means of devaluing Christianity, simply to demonstrate my anti theism. But if you really want me to change it, I will do so happily. :p

Science doesn't contradict religion................

And there a reason they call it the big bang THEORY.
The Big Bang is proclaimed by many religious people to be a divine act of God. That particular example of a scientific theory is compatible with religion.
 
When proclaiming belief in the sanctity of Christ, however, you must by default proclaim belief in that of his teachings and the bible, bother of which are fierce advocates and teachers of creationism.

Christ (as far as I know) said nothing about creation.

And you'd be hard pushed to find a majority of Christians who are creationists. Creationism certainly isn't the default way of thinking within the church.

edit: keep the sig, I don't give a ****. If people choose to be offended by it they can block the image/turn of signatures. If there's one thing worse than deliberate insults it's people taking offense far too easily.
 
For the record, i'm agnostic. However, the onus must always be on those to prove a positive, not a negative?

Not really as this is denying the possibility, something quite different to outright proof.

Remember science is a model and doesn't really care about the actual method involved. It is not this all powerful all correct thing. if the data fits, that is good enough for science.
 
Christ (as far as I know) said nothing about creation.

And you'd be hard pushed to find a majority of Christians who are creationists. Creationism certainly isn't the default way of thinking within the church.
Which is one of my main arguments against religion. All I choose to go by is what is taught in the bible, and in the holy book of any religion. If a Christian chooses not to believe in creationism, then they're not a Christian and I've no idea why they claim to be so.
 
Christ (as far as I know) said nothing about creation.

And you'd be hard pushed to find a majority of Christians who are creationists. Creationism certainly isn't the default way of thinking within the church.

edit: keep the sig, I don't give a ****. If people choose to be offended by it they can block the image/turn of signatures. If there's one thing worse than deliberate insults it's people taking offense far too easily.

Really? I thought they believed in evolution and creationism?
 
The Big Bang is proclaimed by many religious people to be a divine act of God. That particular example of a scientific theory is compatible with religion.

I disagree. But since that would derail the whole thread i won't go there.

Really? I thought they believed in evolution and creationism?

I do. Evolution being micro evolution.
 
Science doesn't contradict religion................

And there a reason they call it the big bang THEORY.

There are many things in science that are 'theories'. A theory does not mean that it might not exist. for example the Theory of mavity doesn't mean that mavity might not exist. Science knows more about the beginning of the universe than the creation of god.

As far as i see it religion is a book of myths and legends passed down through the ages and written down, translated many times and twisted beyond meaning by many people throughout the ages to set their own agenda and keep control of the population.

IMO think of the world as 'The Matrix' the people in the matrix are the religious people, going about their daily lives in ignorant bliss, the people in the real world are the enlightened scientific ones who know what really goes on. Is it better to be in the real world? Debatable. Although as I am a scientific man I would never wish to be religious for the simplicity of delusion.

Also another point that creationalists will try and push is that the 'theory' of evolution is just a theory and could be wrong. In fact natural selection and mutation has been observed and therefore is a proven fact.

Hamish
 
Last edited:
going about their daily lives in ignorant bliss, the people in the real world are the enlightened scientific

Dear oh dear, perhaps you need to understand what science is. You are no more enlightened than anyone else. In fact many scientists are religious.
 
Back
Top Bottom