Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I think that's far closer to the site's actual purpose. Destroy the Bible's credibility, and you destroy a good deal of the justification for believing in its deity, or changing the world in the way the Bible demands.

I guess, but it really should stress at best that it's "putting into question the credibility of a piece of evidence for the existence of God" rather than "proving God doesn't exist".  And it becomes an especially silly "proof" if the person doesn't believe that the Bible is necessarily a piece of evidence for the existence of God in the first place.

The name of God is an excuse, everything done in religion's name would be done under another garb if it didn't exist

I don't think it's possible to generalize to that degree (doing so would require a somewhat deterministic viewpoint, and a view that some people are just fundamentally evil no matter what their surroundings), but it is probably the case that the overall sum of bad things done probably wouldn't change much if the worse religious fundamentalist organizations were replaced with comparable nonreligious fundamentalist organizations.

I would say that toning down fundamentalism in general could have a positive effect, though (of which forms of religion is one possible type).

It's not even "religion," it's Christianity.  It's always Christianity, to the point where atheists will assume theists are Christian and argue as such.

To be fair, the site is called "God is imaginary".  Capitalised God (ie the name) often specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian one.

[Criptfeind]

I thought the Chinese invented guns?

[Megaman]

Europeans, historically, were rather un-nice overall.

Pretty much like everyone else.

Yes, but excuses to do said un-nice things can get to religious excuses, and now Mr.GODISATWATpants can have a field day.

I thought the Chinese invented guns?

gunPOWDER, yes. They used it in fireworks

[Jackrabbit]

I thought the Chinese invented guns?

That's why he said effective firearms.

I agree that removing fundamentalists would be a positive thing. There is no such thing as good extremism. Too bad the only ways to remove fundamentalists are extreme and morally bankrupt.

[ArKFallen]

I guess a few of the points could challenge a literal reading of the Bible and some interpretations of it, though.

I think that's far closer to the site's actual purpose. Destroy the Bible's credibility, and you destroy a good deal of the justification for believing in its deity, or changing the world in the way the Bible demands.

Now that sounds right. Putting it that way makes it seem reasonable, especially with all the issues you'd get from taking the Bible literally. Especially the parts for the ancient Israelites. Timestamps; 3:34 is actually Deut17 5-7 and out of serious context; 4:01 is right but then again if you didn't follow these teachings at all you might not follow similar rules kind of like the punishment for murder in Levit24 17-22; 7:15 & 8:24 the examples within were for the ancient Israelites who already had slaves (even some Israelite slaves) and probably wouldn't be dissuaded otherwise.
  Tons of it is insanity unless they really did mean for people to take the Bible less literally, in which case it seems fair and understandable. But the slavery and homophobic bits still send shivers down my spine

That took awhile...

[Svarte Troner]

extreme and morally bankrupt.


Count me in.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Sites like this bother me, because I see no point in trying to disprove Religion, but rather think that we should try and fight injustices committed in the name of Religion. Half the people I know are religious and they're jolly good people, but there's an AIDS epidemic in Africa and children are being molested and people are getting away with it. Surely fighting this is more important? Fighting it by combating the people, not the idea? Because trying to disprove God isn't going to stop people doing horrible things in the name of X.

If the idea keeps the people causing abuses in power, then fighting the idea does have an effect, in that it changes society. For example, priests who molest children will have a hard time doing so if no one goes to their church. Interior changes have to be made by people inside the religion in question, but those of us outside of the religion obviously aren't in that position. The only ways for those who are "on the outside" have to fight religious injustices is to advocate justice for those harmed by religion and to try and tear down the religion so the injustices aren't repeated, because those on the inside seem unwilling to combat those injustices themselves. That's the reason for sites like this. If religion stops hurting people and trying to influence politics, sites like godisimaginary.com will probably fade away. I don't really hold out much hope for that scenario, though.

[Criptfeind]

Okay. That was not a question. The Chinese had real guns 100 years before the Europeans had their primitive cannons.

[Bauglir]

I thought the Chinese invented guns?

I stealth-edited in "effective" because I suddenly remembered something to that effect. I'm pretty sure they worked out basic cannons, but I don't think it ever really went anywhere in terms of revolutionizing warfare. I could be wrong about that, it's been a couple years since Chinese History.

ANYway, my point is that I may have misinterpreted Megaman's post to have implied that Europeans were somehow unique in their degree of violence and that religion contributed to that or something. My bad.

[Jackrabbit]

Sites like this bother me, because I see no point in trying to disprove Religion, but rather think that we should try and fight injustices committed in the name of Religion. Half the people I know are religious and they're jolly good people, but there's an AIDS epidemic in Africa and children are being molested and people are getting away with it. Surely fighting this is more important? Fighting it by combating the people, not the idea? Because trying to disprove God isn't going to stop people doing horrible things in the name of X.

If the idea keeps the people causing abuses in power, then fighting the idea does have an effect, in that it changes society. For example, priests who molest children will have a hard time doing so if no one goes to their church. Interior changes have to be made by people inside the religion in question, but those of us outside of the religion obviously aren't in that position. The only ways for those who are "on the outside" have to fight religious injustices is to advocate justice for those harmed by religion and to try and tear down the religion so the injustices aren't repeated, because those on the inside seem unwilling to combat those injustices themselves. That's the reason for sites like this. If religion stops hurting people and trying to influence politics, sites like godisimaginary.com will probably fade away. I don't really hold out much hope for that scenario, though.

I don't think trying to tear down the religion is the way to go about it. A), it strikes me as a totally impossible idea and B), it'll make people who just want justice done be painted as hostile, and there are over one billion Christians in the world, most of whom are moderate people who will nevertheless probably be completely outraged at people trying to 'tear down' their religion. Now, if you get the support of the layman in a religion, that's when change happens. It's a much more doable goal and much less confrontational. Don't fight someone's belief system, that's nigh impossible to change, but rather convince them that whether you're Atheist or Religion, shit like the molestation pandemic in the Catholic church cannot and will not stand.

[sonerohi]

Screw organized religion. Pick what you believe and what you think is right in relation to the practice of that belief. Like Jesus, Buddha, and praying via firing arrows at the sun? Go for it.

[Cthulhu]

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

[Svarte Troner]

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

The Old Testament Bible is honestly pretty f*cked up. To me there is no use trying to justify some of the stuff in there.

[Criptfeind]

Screw organized religion.

That totally defeats the point of religion.

(Not saying that if you did not organize Jeddha archery I would not totally join.)

[ArKFallen]

Screw organized religion. Pick what you believe and what you think is right in relation to the practice of that belief. Like Jesus, Buddha, and praying via firing arrows at the sun? Go for it.

That's the way to go. Watch where you're shooting though. Don't want pray casualties.

Re:  Slavery in the Bible.  It wasn't like what we think of.  Slavery was more like indentured servitude.  If you committed a crime against someone or wanted to buy something you didnt' have the money for, you became a slave until you'd worked off your debt.

Many times you never worked off your debt and your family was indentured, For LIFE.