Question on Gods existance

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Darren Koch's picture
Algebe- pretty sure my wife

Algebe- pretty sure my wife felt pretty bad after the kid came out. Here's another. If you could take suffering in place of a family member, say a child, would you? I would. I would suffer, and have joy in knowing my child's suffering was reduced. As far as the Eve thing, I've heard that but I dunno- doesn't really matter...I'm just glad he left the joy part!

algebe's picture
@Sinner: "If you could take

@Sinner: "If you could take suffering in place of a family member, say a child, would you?"

Every human parent wishes that when a child is sick. But it's actually impossible to do, so the question is pointless. More to the point: Would you donate a kidney or other organ to save your child? My answer is yes, in a heartbeat.

Parental willingness to sacrifice for children isn't a matter of joy in suffering. It's a mammalian trait that appears in its most refined form in human beings.

Of course, in the natural world that you say your god created, there are also animals that eat their children when threatened or short of food. If the parents die, the infants will die anyway. If the parents can survive, they can breed again. Do you think they take joy in eating their children?

Darren Koch's picture
Interest or not Chimp, you

Interest or not Chimp, you will suffer and you will die. Promise. Do u see this is where our suffering as His Church is united with His suffering and sacrifice on the cross?

chimp3's picture


Yes, we all die. What does this have to do with the death of your imaginary Savior-on-a-Stick? Human sacrifice is not something I place any value in. I treat blood like an infectious agent, not something to bathe in.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sinner - Pure Christianity is

Sinner - Pure Christianity is a paradox.

I might agree with that; but that isn't a good thing.

Cole Kaos's picture
Here is what I find

Here is what I find interesting.....some of you state you are ex theists, while others claim to have been religious etc. Others commenting here are clearly quite intelligent.

I think we can all agree that mankind is an intelligent species through his and her many many obvious examples of work ie: math, science, technology, arts etc etc etc..the list goes on and on.

What I find most interesting though from many modern day intellectuals proffessing on the subject of god or religion is that they fail to recognise mans intelligence on this matter.
Clearly we can agree that the bible, the koran, and all the other books are written by man (inspired by god if you wish....whatever). To blatantly say it is all hocus pocus bullshit is to dismiss mans intelligence. Why? because the proof of mans intelligence is everywhere around us. i am using it right now to communicate with you.

So if man is indeed intelligent then we have to understand and respect the intelligence that wrote those so call hocus pocus bullshit stories. You gain nothing from dismissing it. You gain everything from realising that you cannot understand it. The fact still is man's attempt to describe that which cannot be seen, heard or felt. And I actually happen to believe that man did a very good job in doing so. Just because I cannot see, feel or hear what is being descibed does not mean it does not exist. It just means i cannot see, hear, feel it...amongst other things.

We are talking about a level of intelligence here that is beyond most peoples level of thinking today.

Here is a hypothetical scenario.....We have the pyramids...a mathmatical marvel. More than likely built by man at a time when his level of intelligence was very very high. Who is to say...wait for it, because this is around the same time ET turned up and made himself known to man when he was building the pyramid....said hello, you're smart...but im smarter....but then made himself invisible. Man then set about describing invisible ET as best he could for future generations...probably knowing that he was about to go into decline as everyone from that point on would think he, or she was a nutcase for talking about and ET that no-one can see, hear or feel.

that's all hypothetical of course but it does pose a real question......why have the concept, the idea of god so therefore it had to have come from somewhere.

Just because there is no proof..or becaise you or i refuse to believe what a beliver believes in does not mean it is not real or does not exist.

I go back to our own intelligence. Man is very very very smart. I would hardly think he or she would waste countless hours, days, years, centuries describing in detail that which most of us cannot understand....for no reason at all. Quite the contrary....Religion is the workof the most intelligent people attempting to descibe something that is actually very real but unfortunately most, if not nearly all of us are incapable of understanding, seeing, hearing, knowing etc.

So i would say....before stating whether there is or is not a god, whether you believe or not etc etc....sit down and think about the level of intelligence it takes to describe...or even attempt to describe something that as said...most if not all will probably never understand.
That point alone sums man up....we always try to explain what it is we are seeing, hearing, feeling etc etc to our fellow man....whether it is now or in the future.

The whole point of this conversation for me is really about asking the question "who wrote the story?" My aim or goal was to have people think about the original narrator/story teller and to ask themselves what level of intelligence the narrator must have had. It was not to focus on the storyline....which most do.

Like it or not (the story) you have to respect that level of thinking.

Thanks for the conversation

CyberLN's picture
"Thanks for the conversation"

"Thanks for the conversation"

It just didn't seem like a conversation to me. It read more like beratement for not fully agreeing with you or responding according to your expectations.

Cole Kaos's picture
CyberLN - You are correct. I

CyberLN - You are correct. I expected you to think about it in a way that wasn't obvious. i was wrong. The response from virtually all was what one would have expected....focusing on the concept, the idea, the "god" rather than focusing on the intellectual capability of someone who would have had to create such a concept/idea if in fact there are no therefore I apologise.

LostLocke's picture
It took intelligence to write

It took intelligence to write The Lord of the Rings. Are you implying that we should be taking that as a serious and factual account?

mykcob4's picture
You keep calling people fools

You keep calling people fools. People that have demonstrated the fallacy of YOUR assumption. So the fool is you. You have zero facts to back your assumption up, zip, zilch, nada! We would be fools if we accepted your assumption on face value. You make a statement that is no more than assumption out of thin air, something you pulled from your ass. Then you expect everyone to accept it. Well, bub the world don't work that way. You can keep calling people fools but bare in mind what is really going on here.
You don't like that your religion, your core belief is essentially responsible for atrocities against humanity. Therefore you think that you'd be clever and lay blame on atheists. Funny how that just doesn't wash.

Cole Kaos's picture
Mykcob...actually it was you

Mykcob...actually it was you who made the first jibe......i merely responde in kind

Nelson Mandela: "Our attitude is based upon your attitude toward us."

mykcob4's picture
Nope Simplicity your first

Nope Simplicity your first post ever was a generalized insult. My first reply to you was pointing out the fallacy of your theory. Then you began a condescending insulting stance in every reply after your OP directed at everyone that you replied to.

Cole Kaos's picture
So you are stating that my

So you are stating that my opinion is insulting you? if so then you would have been best to not reply rather than add your own insult. I would expect that of someone with a high intelligence such as yourself.
However, given that you "claim" it is a generalized insult then I can state I do no not believe you or agree with you. This sounds familiar.......

mykcob4's picture
I am not in opposition to

I am not in opposition to your opinion. You can have any opinion you want. The problem is that you don't understand that you didn't state your opinion. You stated a generalized thinly veiled insult. Also after a couple of post by you, it came out what your real agenda was. You want to rail against Global warming and DNA science. The fact is that you wanted an excuse to start calling atheists names, because you apparently thought that if you accuse atheists of making up a god and then you further insulted them by claiming that atrocities committed in the name of said god were the responsibility of atheists they would react in a way that would justify rants and insults by you.
Of course, you knew that your fake theory would be soundly debunked and that is exactly what you had hoped for.
So by definition of a troll, you are one. You purposely started a thread to justify you calling people names.
Internet Troll
A mythological internet being that lives under an internet bridge. Loves to hunt for innocent netizens.

Common tactics: antagonizing other netizens by posting racist or offensive comments
Weakness: being outwitted or unable to antagonize others

You have been soundly outwitted!

Cole Kaos's picture
There you go again....stating

There you go again....stating I assume everything, then making clear assumptions yourself such as "my core belief". What evidence can you produce that proves I believe in what it is you think I believe in? Where is this concrete evidence, this irrefutable evidence that I actually do believe in whatever it is you are assuming i believe in? the burden of proof is upon you to prove that I believe in whatever it is you seem to think i believe in....once you have done that then we can start discussing anything you wish. Until you do that however you are blinded and bound up by your own assumptions about me and therefore incapable of discussing anything at all.

mykcob4's picture
Again simplicity check your

Again simplicity check your profile!

Darren Koch's picture
Wrong- irresponsible humans

Wrong- irresponsible humans NOT following Christ are responsible for these atrocities, not true Christians acting as servants.

mykcob4's picture
Nope Sinner. The fact is that

Nope Sinner. The fact is that Europeans committed genocide in the Americas against the natives in the name of jesus. The Nazis terrorized jews in the name of christianity. The list is endless.

Darren Koch's picture
Americans violated natives in

Americans violated natives in their perverted, selfish and completely false terms of Christ. Your assertion that Nazi's acted in accordance with Catholicism is so far off base it isn't worth arguing.

mykcob4's picture
So YOU say Sinner but history

So YOU say Sinner but history and the truth say different.

LostLocke's picture
This is what's called a

This is what's called a loophole. Or, a 'get out of jail free' card.

If person A identifies as part of group 1 and are doing good, person A is a "true member" of group 1, else person A is not a "true member".
Works for pretty much anything.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.