₦airaland Forum

I went through studies and questioning of beliefs since beginning of 100 level till now that I have begun working. I have dedicated my life to question whatever comes my way be it religion, food and everything. I enjoyed what I am doing now because this has helped me into the realm of reality. It makes me see some bunch of unproven ideas. And till now, I am a student of ‘knowledge’. The more I ask questions and study, it seems to me I don’t know and I want to know more. If you are new born baby and you could prove your facts to me I would gladly accept them. I made up my mind that I won’t accept any knowledge or belief systems without critical questioning and proofs/reasons. The person of me now is by this description; “I am not committed to believing in either the existence or the non existence of God or god” based on my little knowledge on god. I think this the most honest group and with evidences you can’t deny. This maybe temporary or permanent depending on the facts or proof I may get at hand today or tomorrow. It would be wise to be at a safer side because what might know happened about knowledge now or later. I have been active members both in debating and evangelizing while representing these groups. Even with my little knowledge now, I doubt if any of these three groups could win me in a debate not for intelligence superiority reasons but for lack in genuine proofs. I would share some of the questions I asked during some of my questioning time with three of these groups. If you have find answers or proofs to them, I would like you to share with us in this forum. The following are few of the questions.


QUESTIONS I ASKED CHRISTIANS AND OTHER ORGANIZED RELIGION

Q1: Why does the only ‘one god’ gives Christian the book (Bible) that contradicts itself (in words) and other book of other religion? Is He not the same god with different names? If all the words in these scriptures are strictly obeyed without using our human reasons, don’t you think we would all be killed by now? We would all kill, enslave and do other evil things to the infidels and some other religion would do likewise to us, how would the world be then?

Q2: If Satan is the originator of all evil in the world, why did God still keep him? Why did he not end his life or make Satan life cease to exist if he is the all knowing, all powerful and justifying God? Why did he need to suffer us in hell for the sin that originated from his creation (Satan)?

Q3: By what you said that God is the past, present and the future, why didn’t he know Satan would later be evil before and after he created him? If he knows, is it not wicked to do so?

OBSERVATION: I realized most Christians don’t like talking about the above questions. You would see them use their own human reasoning to help their ‘god given words’ explaining why this or that is not a contradiction. They don’t allow the scriptures to speak for themselves but help it. How can you help God? I do react when they use this method. They can’t explain reasons for the above questions. I said to myself, why the same god should send over different 500 contradicting scriptures (e.g. different heaven, different hell, different Satan and so on)? If He must send scriptures to us, why can’t he send the same message with different language at the same time? I still questioned that is Satan more powerful than god? Why would I believe in a system whose doctrine and styles is built on these faulty or man made scriptures. We know that human is not perfect and that same imperfection of man is found in the scripture that was assumed to come from a perfect being. The writing styles, history, and other evil things present create my unbelief for this group.

QUESTIONS I ASKED ATHEISTS

Q1: Why do you say there is no creator that creates nature? What physical or theoretical proof or evidence do you have to conclude there is no god or the creator never exits at any time?

Q2: Since most atheists disagreed that the nature is not a creation rather they agreed that it is either eternal or accidental within nature, what evidence of proof do you have about your either agreements or chosen choice?

Q3: Why do atheists shift ‘burden of proof’ on their debaters since we know that the word; ‘God does not exist’ is an affirmative statement that can be proven in logic? Why can’t they say with all honesty that ‘I cannot prove god does not exist’?

OBSERVATION: Honestly speaking, I see atheism like a kind of religion without rituals and uniform beliefs systems. They seem to act the same way organized religion do. They are not honest when it comes to the area where their belief systems is challenged or needed proofs. They would quickly dodge using some sort of fallacy like “the burden of proof lies on you since I cannot proof there is no god just like I can’t prove the spaghetti monsters “or any related and dishonest form of fallacy. It is only a negative statement that cannot prove. Some doesn't know that some statements maybe negative but still called affirmative logic statements that needed proofs. One of such statement is ‘God does not exist’, this is an affirmative statements even if it in negative form. How could my belief rely only on a system that has no proven facts? One of the reasons I left organized religion is because of their dogma, why should I still accept another dogmatic belief without any proof or reasons?



QUESTIONS I ASKED DEISTS

Q1: Why should I believe that the creator creates the earth and left the earth or universe alone since human can’t just leave his child to suffer? When did he leave? Who is the human that saw him while leaving? At least human should be able to identify his maker before God finished his creation or what?

Q2: If the creator left the universe, where could he have gone to and for what reason did he do such?

Q3: Why do some deists give thanks to the creator that doesn’t care about prayers?


OBSERVATION: I find out that this group said they believed god because of a reason. And that such reason is nature. And that this is not man made, so this nature is a creation. They also argue that since there is a creation then there must be a creator. I agreed with their honesty for saying they believed god by the reason of the creation we can see. I found that this is still not a belief system I should rely on. I reasoned, why should a reasonable creator leave nature? If He can create an intelligent been who can’t afford to leave a day old or even more, why would a creator do otherwise? Why should I accept this assertion? It is not reasonable for a mother to drop her child to suffer while she has the capacity to care and make the child fulfilled its ambition. Does reason alone proof anything?




http://seggzz2005..com.ng/search/label/RELIGION%20AND%20PSYCHOLOGY

OP, why do some earthly parents build storeys when they know that their children may fall from a certain floor and die? Can they explain this to infants or an embryo?

herzern:
No Valid Points......

Nexxxt thread!!

I bet you prove to me that there is no valid points and i will agree with you. You don't just make statements without reasons. State your reasons here if you actually know...

LordNislaz:
OP, why do some earthly parents build storeys when they know that their children may fall from a certain floor and die? Can they explain this to infants or an embryo?

At least we know that human is imperfect and not all knowing like the perfect being.And so due to imperfection, he/she(human) may act rational or irrational sometimes. Parents(bible god), building(earth),embryo(human being not fully created). Are you saying we have not been completely created? You are equally saying that why should the 'being not fully created' receive information? Is that reasonable enough? Embyo,explanation and parent are not related at all, how has this got to do with the questions on this thread?

seggzz, I agree with you, but you do realize that most atheists are agnostic as well. You will rarely meet an atheist who thinks that they can disprove the existence of any god. This includes myself. I am not 100% certain that there are no gods.

onetrack:
seggzz, I agree with you, but you do realize that most atheists are agnostic as well. You will rarely meet an atheist who thinks that they can disprove the existence of any god. This includes myself. I am not 100% certain that there are no gods.

I got your point here. According to Merriam Webster dictionary; atheism is 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity 
b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

I classified atheists into two groups:

(1) Passive atheists- these are group who lacked belief in a deity. This group are who i called pseudo atheists. Nothing wrong on their disbeliefs and I'm not always after them.

(2). Active or dogmatic atheists - these are atheists who have a doctrine or conclusion with 100% certain that there is no god(s). These are the people i listed as the atheist in this thread. I mostly debate against them. They usually end up insulting me. I usually debate against this group with passion just as i do with religious people and deists.

seggzz:
I got your point here. According to Merriam Webster dictionary; atheism is 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity 
b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

I classified atheists into two groups:

(1) Passive atheists- these are group who lacked belief in a deity. This group are who i called pseudo atheists. Nothing wrong on their disbeliefs and I'm not always after them.

(2). Active or dogmatic atheists - these are atheists who have a doctrine or conclusion with 100% certain that there is no god(s). These are the people i listed as the atheist in this thread. I mostly debate against them. They usually end up insulting me. I usually debate against this group with passion just as i do with religious people and deists.

There are actually names for those categories. #1 are called agnostic atheists and #2 are called gnostic atheists. I'm pretty sure the majority of atheists are type #1. But there are a few gnostic atheists as well, I just don't agree with them.

Many are beginning to see the light