Dinosaurs are not real :(

The point is bhavv, that the Christians believe (whatever the numbers) that it was not biological in nature for her to get pregnant, it was divine intervention.

Well, that's the thing. I was surprised to find any believers in the divinity of the conception.

That's a literal uplift of the words of the bible, which I would have said was unusual. I find most Christians these days steer as far away from taking the Bible in its literal sense as possible.

Maybe I should make my own sign instead:

'Anyone that believes in God is a fool'.

Surely thats fine isnt it, if theists can say the same thing about atheists?

My current desktop has three no entry signs over the Christian cross, the Islamic moon and star and the Star of David. Underneath the text reads 'ADULTS WITH IMAGINARY FRIENDS ARE STUPID'. :)
 
This takes me back to Raptorjesus.jpg.
I thought that said RastaJesus at first :D; guilty and convicted conscience on my behalf?

b.t.w. I would never have guessed Castiel is an ex gangbanger. Were you a bit of a Badboy Castiel? :) I get the feeling you have never lacked though? :confused: Maybe you just fell into the wrong crowd or wanted to flirt with the dark side?
 
It frankly makes me slightly embarrassed to be an atheist.

Really? Why is it then that this video here gets 3,248 likes and 192 dislikes:


That money comment was one of the dummest things I have ever heard.

Surely, it seems that the majority of people out there agree with me, and the fantastic woman in this video :)

And it also seems to me that the majority of 'God believers' are as ignorant as the ones who were on this show.

Apparantly a person that doesnt believe in God still has faith because they believe that money exists, oh roffle roffle lolololololol!!!!
 
Last edited:
I actually find that really sad.

Will they teach this to their young?

Yes, they take their kids to their church.

My mum is the same, I had to goto church till I was 12 then I was given the choice, my sister enjoyed it and stayed on.

My brother in law only joined the church in his mid 20's, im sure he only did it to pick up a woman though.

They are not mental in any way, they just believe that the bible is fact and not story. Ive never had the dinosaur discussion with my mum but I have with my brother in law, ill need to ask her.

I have quite a bit of fun with him (as we work together) asking him a question to see what he thinks then tell him that the bible says the opposite, the other week I asked him what he thought of someone selling their daughter for sex, he of course said that its terrible and should never happen, i quoted exodus to him where it says its okay. ;)
 
Well, that's the thing. I was surprised to find any believers in the divinity of the conception.

That's a literal uplift of the words of the bible, which I would have said was unusual. I find most Christians these days steer as far away from taking the Bible in its literal sense as possible.

Generally I am cautious what I take in from the bible, and frankly haven't read all of it. In fact I haven't read the bible in about 10 years ("Numbers" is excruitatingly boring), and not been to a church in about 7 years. . I quite openly accept that a lot of the things in the bible are meant as examples rather than the literal sense, but I was quite honestly under the impression that he description of Jesus's conception should be taken in the literal sense. I there is doctorine saying that it isn't the case, I'd be somewhat surprised.

But then every Christian has their own personal view point. Perhaps I'll ask my wife at some point as she's done a bible degree and could probably quite easily explain some of the things about the conception that I never even knew about.
 
Generally I am cautious what I take in from the bible, and frankly haven't read all of it. In fact I haven't read the bible in about 10 years ("Numbers" is excruitatingly boring), and not been to a church in about 7 years. . I quite openly accept that a lot of the things in the bible are meant as examples rather than the literal sense, but I was quite honestly under the impression that he description of Jesus's conception should be taken in the literal sense. I there is doctorine saying that it isn't the case, I'd be somewhat surprised.

But then every Christian has their own personal view point. Perhaps I'll ask my wife at some point as she's done a bible degree and could probably quite easily explain some of the things about the conception that I never even knew about.

I certainly don't believe there is doctrine around the immaculate conception not being literal.

That doesn't mean that in this day and age people can't read between the lines. Most that I have discussed it with don't take it literally, but I'm convinced the church does.
 
Darwin distinctly rejected religious beliefs, those of Christianity in particular, as being wrong. He struggled with this for years and hence knew that his theory and any theory provided by religion were mutually exclusive. It is inherently wrong to accept religious beliefs as correct, and accept religion.
 
Really? Why is it then that this video here gets 3,248 likes and 192 dislikes:




Surely, it seems that the majority of people out there agree with me, and the fantastic woman in this video :)

What has that got to do with my statement? Your blinkered fundamentalist attitude is what makes me embarrassed to share similar views...
 
What has that got to do with my statement? Your blinkered fundamentalist attitude is what makes me embarrassed to share similar views...

I think a lot of people here dont know what 'fundamentalist' means. I suggest you look the word up before calling me one.

Some simple facts:

People who believe in God are fools.
People who believe in heaven are what the lady in the video calls them.
 
Last edited:
I certainly don't believe there is doctrine around the immaculate conception not being literal.

That doesn't mean that in this day and age people can't read between the lines. Most that I have discussed it with don't take it literally, but I'm convinced the church does.

I'm not an active Christian per se, so I really haven't put much thought into the why's and how's since many years.

I can read between the lines, and see (from a scientific perspective) it is quite likely they had sex, but didn't want to admit it [insert obvious day and age repercusions], so came up with this mad idea to protect themselves... and then later on had other 'legitimate' children. But then that would blow a whole lot of what I think out of the water, even though I don't particulary care either way.

As a slack Christian, it's a difficult one really.. where to draw the line of what is literal and what is not.
 
I do not subscribe to any form of faith (including atheism) and I think your statement is wholly incorrect.

How is atheism a faith? If you dont believe in any kind of God or Deity, then by definition of the word, that makes you an atheist.
 
I do not subscribe to any form of faith (including atheism) and I think your statement is wholly incorrect.

Athiesm is not a form of faith...

Sorry dude but I think you've taken what I meant out of context, and perhaps I didn't express what I meant well enough. I mean that if you accept that science backed by evidence is the truth, then you cannot possibly believe religion to be true.
 
No you havnt, you never did, and you failed at comprehending that I want YOU to answer the question, and not your ignorant lolreligion links.

I understand what you want, and those links explain why Evolution is not contrary to a Non-literal interpretation of Creation in Genesis....The links were not ignorant either, they were all derived from eminent, intelligent and informed people, including a Biologist. I answered the question you asked with supporting evidence of what the majority of Christians believe, that was the question you asked.

However in the interest of conciliation I will try again giving my solely own opinion.

Simply put.....Most Christian denominations (those with a non-literal interpretation of Scripture) hold that there is a God that created the Material Universe and by association all life within (including Mankind), and that Evolution is a natural process within that overall divine creation and as such Evolution is a mechanism employed by God to develop life on Earth, including that of Man.

This view is accepted by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the major Protestant denominations, Judaism and the independent Free Churches that do not ascribe to a literal view of specific Scripture, namely Genesis....as I pointed out earlier there is another group of Christians that ascribe to an interpretation known as Biblical Literalism and they generally hold a literal view of scripture including Genesis and they oppose Evolution, preferring Creationism or Intelligent Design. The latter is a minority viewpoint not held by the mainstream Christian or Jewish Faiths.

I hope this answers your question Bhavv.


Why do you feel the need to keep on defending something that you yourself dont even believe in? If religion wasnt BS, then you wouldnt have chosen not to believe it.

Christianity doesn't fit within my world-view for a whole raft of reasons, most notably that I find any singular definition of God to be contradictory to other definitions of God and as such I cannot reconcile any religious belief until I can reconcile a universally accepted and falsifiable definition of God with that of my world-view.

As for defending Christianity, I am not, I am pointing out that your statements are not supported by the facts, either by the religions themselves and their doctrines, interpretations and stated beliefs regarding evolution.

There are some Christians participating in this thread who have been on the other side of my opinion on their belief and interpretations, notably kedge and jmc007 at one time or another. I approach this entirely from an academic perspective and not one biased by an agenda to either prove or disprove any particular belief.
 
Athiesm is not a form of faith...

Yes it is.

Sorry dude but I think you've taken what I meant out of context, and perhaps I didn't express what I meant well enough. I mean that if you accept that science backed by evidence is the truth, then you cannot possibly believe religion to be true.

I've not taken it out of context. That is not what you wrote. You may have meant to put science and wrote religion twice?

Athiesm is the absence of belief, it's the default state that we are born into as people.
No it isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom