₦airaland Forum

During my researches and questioning on religion, I decided to post some of my findings on this aspect of that may amaze the christians. Some mistakenly believe human sacrifice is forbidden in the Old Testament.You would see Pastors or priests condeming the traditional religion on this whereas they also encourage it as present in their Bible. Certainly, some of the prophets railed against it. But in at least one book, LORD God accepts human sacrifice. And in another book, LORD God is appeased by human sacrifice.
In the following account from the Book of Judges, the Israelite warrior Jephthah is about to set off to make war on the Ammonites. In payment for victory, Jephthah promises LORD God he will sacrifice the first "whatsoever" that comes from his house to greet him upon his return. Unless Jephthah keeps oxen, sheep, goats, or chickens in his living room, he must expect the promised victim will be a human being. Notice that Jephthah does not promise to sacrifice "an ox" or "a goat," etc.

And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
— Judges 11:30-31 (KJV)


The first to pass through the doors of Jephthah's house upon his return is his only child, his beloved daughter.

And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
— Judges 11:34-35 (KJV)




Let us reflect for a moment. We know Jephthah vowed to LORD God to sacrifice "whatsoever" first came out of the door of his house. We suspect Jephthah plans to sacrifice one of his servants. But when the "whatsoever" turned out to be Jephthah's daughter, Jephthah is surprised. Notice his daughter's reaction:
And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
— Judges 11:36 (KJV)


She expresses no surprise that LORD God would accept a human sacrifice, nor does she protest; she does not say, "Father, let's use some common sense. You know LORD God is dead set against human sacrifice. He must have thought an ox would meet you on your return, or perhaps a goat, or one of the chickens. There must be a misunderstanding." Instead, she urges her father to keep his promise. She says:
And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.(2 Judges 11:37)



Jephthah agrees:
[b]And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
— Judges 11:38-40 (KJV)


[/b]None but perfect animals are permitted to be ritually sacrificed in Judaism. Notice that Jephthah's daughter, too, is a perfect sacrifice — she is a virgin. Notice that LORD God does not stop this human sacrifice, as he stopped the sacrifice of Abraham's son.
The Old Testament does not specify how Jephthah sacrifices his daughter, but following the correct methods for animal sacrifice, he would slit her throat first and drain her blood into a Temple service vessel; cut off her arms, legs, and head; cut the torso in sections, remove her entrails and wash them; pour, sprinkle, and smear her blood at prescribed points around the altar; and burn the flesh. Or of course, a priest might do this for him.

Bible God Accept Human Sacrifice in 2 Samuel Chapter 21
In 2 Samuel 21, David is king over Judah. A famine oppresses the land; King David learns that LORD God is punishing Israel for King Saul's sin (Saul attacked the Gibeonites in violation of Joshua's treaty Joshua 9:15). Therefore, in order to relieve the famine, David must appease the Gibeonites. On negotiation, the Gibeonites demand to be given seven descendants of Saul to be hanged "unto the LORD." David picks two of Saul's sons and five of Saul's grandsons. Coincidentally, the five grandsons are the children of Michal, the woman David had wanted to marry (see 1 Samuel 18:25). David gives these Israelites to the Gibeonites so the Gibeonites can hang them.
Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after.

What do you have to say to this ALL MERCIFUL GOD?









For more info->> http://seggzz2005..com.ng/2016/09/unbelievable-bible-god-accept-human.html

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.

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?

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...

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

EyeHateGod
This is The Reason I called U a Big Fool Nature is not synonymous to Earth The Earth Can not be as Eternal as Nature Cause they ain't the same thing but the material the Earth Formed from is eternal But When was the time did that Material decide to come together to form the earth and other planets in our solar system is the date given to it to be about 4+billion years old. DO U understand no[/qu[b]otw olodo

PHILOSOPHY 101[center][/center]
Properties are entities that things are said to bear, possess or exemplify. In philosophy properties is a function of an attribute. I would use 'attribute' to explain to this 100% rated fool who claim to know but knows nothing. For example if we have two entities like 'orange' and 'green' and the relation between them is 'green'. We can attribute 'green' to orange by saying the 'orange' is 'green' or orange is green. Here we see how we can attached a relation to form a property. Likewise if the relation between 'earth' and 'nature' is 'natural properties' or 'nature'. We can say by the properties of the relation that 'earth' is 'nature' or earth is nature.This nature relation property is true for the earth because the earth is not man made. Since nature is the property of the earth, therefore, the earth is not eternal. I said before that the nature is synonymous to creation not to earth using Merriam Webster dictionary as a source.

Assignment 101[center][/center]
How is the earth eternal? Discuss with evidences(e.g Science Journals and Publication, Real Objects demonstration and other sources that have evidence of proof)


NOTE: Make sure you don't deviate from from the points just as you have done in my previous assignments. In those assignments you scored zero. This is because there is no points neither do you provide any evidence. This is 20marks


SUBMISSION DATE: At any date and time.

EyeHateGod

U are a big fool are U not the one that made this assertion?
Question2: Can Atheists prove that The Universe Creator does not exist with evidence?

EyeHateGod: The Universe Can not Be created Its Made up of Matter & Energy!! I don't wanna start stating basic laws here.
Valentinemary: Sorry to disappoint u, I can't prove there is no creator
Agwom: Poverty can not stop you from singing praises to the lord your God.

Me:Who among the above people has been able to answer the question fully with the evidence asked? (A)EyeHateGod (B) Valentinemary (C) Agwom (D) None of the above.
Their responses show they deviated and they don’t have answers to the above questions.

I can see your foolishness ratings is almost 100%.Can't you read that i lifted the words from monickers posts? You may checked if you didn't make such comments as placed beside your monicker in the quoted.When I was an atheists i never made any form deviation to hide my ignorance. I kept the arguments open minded because this a situation of beliefs and not a money scheme. How is the assertion made by me? Are the words placed by your monicker my words? It is a big No! Can somebody see what i'm seeing? Can you see he has nothing else to say about the topics again here?

EyeHateGod: Its illogical to think that nature is a creation but it's logical to think that nature is eternal!
Raphiemontella: the stars are in the universe ..nobody said earth is eternal oga..
Earth is a planet that formed like one of the many other planets.
Valentinemary: And there are lots of reason to believe that it is an accidentalproduct.
We can see contradictions between EyeHateGod and raphiemontella replies.

[b]Please what is the contradiction?? BIG LIAR LIKE U

Must you used words verbatim before we know your are saying? or do you have to use 'not' before we know the negation of a statements in logic? If A={a,b,c} and you pick elements 'a', don't you know 'a' is one of the properties or definition of a set A? We have Nature={universe, earth, galaxies,life,satellites and others}. If you take the earth you have taken the universe since they both have naturalistic properties and the earth is a subset of the Nature. So when talking about the earth you're also talking about the Nature.Therefore picking anything under nature is the same as picking nature because of their common properties,'nature'. How is your statements contradicting others? It is contradicting where you made some contradictory word like 'eternal' for the earth because that word shows naturalistic property for the earth and the universe and all other things under nature as in my sets notation.You are contradicting their properties and that gives contradiction.Picking the earth is the same as picking the universe and picking the universe is the same as picking nature! You didn't only contradict Raphiemontella you also contradicts the guy with 'accidentalproduct' word. Is that clear? You can learn now If you say nature is eternal but we can see life which is part of nature is not eternal and that word contradicts the rest of things that are part of nature.

EyeHateGod:
Seggzz U be confirm Olodo So U Don't the diff between Universe And Earth?

I am Olodo compare to the information available to be acquired about nature. I don't know much compare to what nature has in store for us. I am ready to study nature and its enormous benefits to the living things. Unlike atheists who do claim they know all it is there to know and couldn't answer this thread questions with a proof. How has this your statement comes to answer with evidence of questions raised on this thread? by the way, universe is synonymous to creation and the earth is part of the creation. Please learn this! Can you quote any of this post other than this i mention the differences between the earth and the universe? This is just another dishonest acts of deviation by the atheists. Your stretagy would not work here. He planned calling me Olodo so that I can also call him Olodo too and the purpose of the thread is forfeited. Again, your plans cannot cannot work here because i would not insult you back.

Although one cannot prove something does not exist, one can refute or at least rebut a theory that something exist by logically
demonstrating flaws in the theory. For example, if a denier of gravity released a marble that did not fall to the floor that would
be proof that Newton's Law of Gravity it was flaw. For some atheists here, when they are asked that they should prove that god does not exist or there is no god, they quickly placed 'burden of proof' on the debaters. They don't even know when they should place burden on proof in logic. Just check example of when to place burden of proof in logic below.

A dodging form of arguments
J: A does not exist/ A does exist.

K: why do you say A does not exist / exists?

J: I am under no obligation to support my reasons for saying A does not exist / exists.
(Discussion ends)

Obviously, J is immature and illogical.
Note: As can be seen from this form of argument, since J has taken it upon himself to make an affirmative statement (for or against something) then it is not unreasonable to expect him to offer his reasons for his statement.


The valid form of argumentation:

R: A does not exist / exists.

S: why do you say A does not exist / exists?

R: Here are my reasons:
He listed the reasons out.

( here we can see that R person is logical and mature.)

Just present a valid form of arguments as explained above Mr KNOW ALL

oaroloye post

SINCE THE OYINBOS HAD THE BIBLE BEFORE THEY EVER MET US, WHOM DID THEY ENSLAVE WITH THOSE SCRIPTURES?

Was there some difference between The Bible that was not used to enslave THEM, and The Bible that was allegedly used to enslave Black people?

Is there a difference between that Bible, and The Bible that is not enslaving people today?

The bible contains the doctrine of slavery. It gave laws and methods of enslavers.The white do enslave themselves before they came to Africa. History told us about Ottoman wars in Europe was caused by slavery.Read on Aztec slavery, slavery in america before visiting Africa. Google them,you would be amazed at the numbers of historical slavery in the world.

YES, IT DOES!

Thieves, Adulterers, Murderers, Coveters, Witches, Sorcerers, Bestials, and Homosexuals are shown by the Scriptures to be our Enemies.

You disagree?

You have forgotten verse in the quran that said that muslims should kill the infidel. And also the Christian doctrines that associate with unbelievers. Some Churches don't want you to marry outsider.The Pentecostal churches are enemies to Catholics and so on.

Talking about The Bible being "man-made," as a negative, is just plain foolish.

There are evidences that the bible is man made. The creator would not send books which teaches immoral teachings, enslave set of people for the others or with series of errors and contradictions. The organized arrangements of the universe; the ways sun didn't prevent earth from working neither do animals enslave themselves and so on. These tell us that the errors or mistakes, contradictions and other evil in that book(BIBLE) is the invention of man.

ValentineMary:
Lolz. Am tired of teaching theist basic science. If u don't know science, u should be studying instead of typing on nairaland. Dude I ans ur qus but u keep asking the same thing and keep believing what u want.

When I read ur first line I was weakened. U have a very very poor method of arguing bro. I would advice u because it seems u are new here. Stick around and watch how other theist argue then u can learn. As for now, this conversation is over since u don't even know science then what am I arguing with u about

I have been in nairaland for sometimes now. I think i have spent over 5 or 6 years now on nairaland and some of my posts has hit front page. This is going to be lengthy because this is the last time i would quote you again. I would be presenting my points in questions and reply form. I have done alot of debates against religious organizations(Imam, Pastors,Churches voluntaries etc) beliefs and atheists dogma beliefs too. You can ask of Mr Show the popular debaters in unilag and lasu if you attend either. I am not surprised with your reaction now because you know you have no points. I would post the following so that people can read and learn as well.

Question1: Which set of atheism are you talking about?


Me: The set atheism i'm talking about are those atheists who according to Merriam Webster said god does not exist or there is no god.

Question2: Can Atheists prove that The Universe Creator does not exist with evidence?

EyeHateGod: The Universe Can not Be created Its Made up of Matter & Energy!! I don't wanna start stating basic laws here.
Valentinemary: Sorry to disappoint u, I can't prove there is no creator
Agwom: Poverty can not stop you from singing praises to the lord your God.

Me:Who among the above people has been able to answer the question fully with the evidence asked? (A)EyeHateGod (B) Valentinemary (C) Agwom (D) None of the above.
Their responses show they deviated and they don’t have answers to the above questions.


Question3: Is nature a creation, eternal to nature, or an accident within nature?

EyeHateGod: Its illogical to think that nature is a creation but it's logical to think that nature is eternal!
Raphiemontella: the stars are in the universe..nobody said earth is eternal oga..
Earth is a planet that formed like one of the many other planets.
Valentinemary: And there are lots of reason to believe that it is an accidentalproduct.
We can see contradictions between EyeHateGod and raphiemontella replies. We can see that there are no that there is no reasons behind valentinemary choosing the accidental product as he said. You could go through valentinemary posts if you see any reasons for choosing that assertion.


Question4: Is Big bang theory explanation or proof that universe is not a creation

Me: using To summarized different sources, the name “big bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle an atheist. The theory itself is the work a Catholic Priest(George Lemaitre) that stated that universe is hot and it’s still in the state of expanding now and later in the future it will contract.And it will continue to contract to form singularity. The Priest uses this theory to explain Roman Catholic doctrines of the creation.Big bang theory did not have single reference of creation which would eliminate the creator. William Bonnor, Fred Hoyle and many hosts of atheists and theists strongly disagree with big bang theory of which later Fred Hoyle the coiner developed a new theory called steady state story. This steady state theory has not only been academically criticized for a lack of scientific evidence but for violating the second law of thermodynamic.

Question: How do science work and is big bang theory of the universe tested?

Me: A summarized format for the scientific method is as follows
(1) Ask a question concerning observation which has been made
(2) Propose a hypothesis which could explain the reason for the observation
(3) Make a prediction (which would hold true if the hypothesis were correct)
(4) Test the prediction
(5) Draw a conclusion base on the outcome of the test.
From the above methods of science, I can categorically said that big bang is not yet tested and is just an assumption for the universe. The word “Theory” in science is mostly used by science for hypothesis. So thinking it is tested is a lie. We cannot say for sure big bang theory is the final answer for the origin of the universe.

ValentineMary:
From the time of the big bang we don dey move. The universe has never been static. The energy from the big bang caused this motion.

You still believe in big bag theory? It is not yet a fact but a mere guess by some scientists. There are large disagreements among scientists in the world. So bringing this here as part of arguments facts is illogical. You shouldn't bring it forward. Guy, the truth remains that there is no good explanations, proofs or evidences that answered my questions so far. From my Merriam Webster dictionary, atheism is a doctrine there is no god. I refer to atheism as a doctrine of there is no god or god doesn't exist. Any other outside the umbrella of this doctrine that still claim atheism belief are just weak atheists or have no genuine stand under atheism. As i predicted in my first posts, the following quoted messages still happened.

Atheists would place burden of proof on existence of god on their debaters rather proving what they were asked to prove

Atheist have no evidence of proof that nature is accidental or eternal within nature

Atheism is not authority of their own yet they gave a conclusive idea of no god

Many atheists in this thread now claim say there maybe god yet lack belief in him(it seems they are running from the real meaning of atheism).

Many atheists in this thread usually resort to some sort of fallacies such as argumetum ad hominem, false analogy, fallacy due to equivocation and limited dept as a way of dodging the real questions.

They have no answers or evidences or proofs that all natural things (Life, death, universe, matter, energy,etc) any yet they claim no creator created them. It is really big sum of dishonesty and unreasonable mind.

ValentineMary:
Seggzz for some reason I could not quote you. So I would reply u here.

U said the evidence of a creator is the creation, this is not a good way to argue[b]( here you committed a fallacy called argumentum ad hominen)[/b]. It is talking in circles. It's like saying the evidence of spiderman is spiderman comic[b](This is a fallacy due wrong analogy)[/b]. It is not logical to say that u would agree[(wrong reasons)[/b].

According to rules of logic you have made many illogical statements. Firstly, you left the real arguments to attack the way i argue. How does this answer those questions i asked you. I asked you for evidences of your claims.and you're diverting the main points.Secondly, You committed what logics called wrong analogy, it should be like this; "it's like saying evidence of a spider is spider web". Your analogy is wrong, spider man is given natural attributes and so, what should follow the relation should be natural attribute.You failed this test of logic. Another analogy for evidence of creation is this; if we can see spider web it is not too far or unreasonable to say that spider exist. Even if you can't see the spider but you can see the web, don't you think atheist conclusion about the spider non existence is unreasonable? So your arguments is illogical from the above proofs. I have answer most of your questions with some evidences or proofs yet you couldn't give me any.

As for how nature came to this complex state, that would lead us to evolution. I believe we are accidental product of nature shapened by evolutionary process.

The last time again, what is your evidence or proofs that nature is accidental?. If you don't have any proof, please don't make this statement again.

ValentineMary:
We don't know for now. But that should not make us call upon a deity to fill our ignorance. And there are lots of reason to believe that it is an accidentalproduct. Astroids crashing into Jupitar, Solar winds making planets naked, galaxies colliding, black holes colliding, super nova destroying planets, etc Who designed this shit

Working at own understanding or view, let us assume you said nobody created it. From what we know in science, matter are naturally in the state of rest.I am sure you know our earth is in the state of motion. Who set this matter in the state of motion since we know that matter is naturally at rest? or Is Motion properties of matter?

[quote author=ValentineMary post=48939046]

And using a God to fill ur ignorance is the most advanced technique right

Like Isaac Newton seeing the apple fall to the ground and then discovering the law of gravity. It then describes rationalization as first accepting an idea and then searching for evidence to support it, like someone inventing the idea of the creator and then saying the creator created the universe. Deism says it is rationality and reason that leads to God. To we deist, the evidence is the creation and the idea of what brought about the evidence is the Creator. There is absolutely nothing known to man that created itself. For example, if someone shows us a TV, and tells us that all the individual parts that make up the TV just came about by chance, that they somehow just formed into a perfectly working TV system all by themselves, we would be foolish to believe that person. Reason, if we use it, won't let us believe a statement like that. Likewise, if someone tells us the ever growing creation(nature) and its arrangement or oganization "happened" by pure chance, we are under no obligation to believe them. From our own experience we know everything created has a creator. Why then should the creation itself be different?

Pls can u give examples ?

Have you heard the Observer-expectancy effects? This is a bias in science where there is bias in what he/she observed(experimented) and what is expected. Example in medical is found in a science journals or paper by Hodges & Scofield in 1995 and many more. We have publication bias, funding bias, cultural bias, reality bias, placebo bias and many more. You could google each to find out more and examples for yourself

[i] I guess u are new on NL. I have explained several times on this forum on most atheist stance on God. I never said God does not exist. Rather I don't believe in God. This means that there might be a God but there is insufficient evidence for any right now. So I don't believe. Am an agnostic atheist, u can google that word for more info.

If you read where i comments on a guy on who is my opponent. I said my opponent is any atheist who claims there is no god. it sound foolish or irrational to just make that assertion without any evidence. Once again, the reason behind accepting there is a creator is because there is a creation as just Newton did. It is a just a reason!!!. What are your proofs that the nature is accidental as you said?[b][/b]

LordZero:
[color=#728C00] What happened to man arrested in Florida for trespassing? He's a black man with the same name (which is actually fishy) with the Russian president but the way bloggers jump on news items to get traffic eeehn...

The whole story might be fake sef...[/color]

If you are a blogger, what would you do with such news? Would you make use of it or not? Is the source content and news fake even though the bear same ****? You would sound stupid if you don't use it.

[quote author=Weah96 post=48933995]

When atheists say that God doesn't exist, they appeal to the holy book connotation of the God idea. How come you don't know this?

We deists too do claim there is no Christian god. And it is only idea of man to create gods using their scriptures. The point here is that there is being that create life, universe and nature generally. Atheist do claim it is came from nothing.We cannot have a creation and dismiss the creator, it is not sound.

You cannot dismiss something without first knowing what you're dismissing. God means one idea in popular culture, bearded man in the sky, talks through prophets, bla bla bla.

Is it also okay to say nature is accidental or eternal within nature? Deist believed even we can't see the creator physically but we can see the creation and that it isn't reasonable to dismiss the creator. Most time we don't use the term 'god' because of the definitions and history attached to it.

You don't even know the identity of your own amorphous God, and yet you accuse atheists of denying it. How can atheists deny something that has no identification or is amorphous?

So your question is unsound. God can mean anything when the speaker is not an adherent of organized religions. In other words, I don't know what you call God so I cannot deny or affirm it's existence. We only know one type of talking god,

Is this enough to say the creator doesn't exist because you can't see or identify the creator? I think the answer is big NO because we can see the creation even though we can't see the creator. Just as i said in this thread using an analogy that since we have the painting, it is illogical and unreasonable to say there is no painter. And that it is reasonable to accept there is a painter since we can see the painting. This my stand! Don't use the word 'god' for me. Use the word 'The creator' instead

laiza:
I blame the people that make Internet accessible to fools like you otherwise you won't come here looking like an idiotic salamander from hogwarts. Vlamir Putin is the Russian president, he has no business going to the US. And if by any chance any Russian named Vlad is arrested on US soil, trust me the Russians will make a swap deal of political prisoners just for the sake of that name. That's how much they love their president. If you want traffic to your wannabe blog just ask, nicely. BTW you're a fraud.

I can't imagine taking this personal. This is a genuine news. Vladimir Putin was actually arrested in US, Have you click to confirm what i'm talking about?

yarimo:
yeah yeah but we don't post rubbish

This is not rubbish my brother.

What is there to wait on?

We can clearly see from this your question that atheists claim to know what is all to know about. You can't prove if creation is eternal within nature or accidental. You can't prove your belief. Any body who can't wait simply means he/she knows it all. You even lack the knowlege regarding your environment and its enormous benefits and yet comes out saying, what is there to wait for. If you agreed that you need to wait, why conclude there is no good. It is only somebody who has all evidences that can say there is no god. I doubt anyone of you(Militant Atheist) has any complete evidence to disapprove god.

Militant atheism is your opponent, not atheism in general.

My opponent is any group or system who concludes or generalized there is no god or god doesn't exist is my opponent. I was once an atheist but i discovered most atheists are not honest.

My goal is to expose the truth and undermine those Nigerian institutions that profit from telling lies. I already know the truth, and could simply mind my own business. After all, there's no monetary reward for exposing the truth in a population that believes a nudist emperor is wearing Versace suits. You don't know who really believes it and who doesn't. But it's certainly worth a try.

I hailed you for this bolded statements. It's also my goal to do so in this our corrupt world. This world is plague with some lies and evil doctrines like the bible and other religious scriptures. The Scriptures are mind control mechanisms and should put away. My intelligent people in Nigeria looks silly with religion. Is it not stupid for a pastor to ask his members the whole salary to sow a seed? I want to be involved in the liberation of Nigeria or even the world from religious slavery and bondage. But my honest question is why do you think there is no god or god doesn't exit?

yarimo:
Ohhh no WEED smokers everywhere, op please WEED is not good for your health.

Take am there....I think you follow dey take am self.

LordZero:
[color=#728C00] This won't get you the traffic you want but it's gonna make you look like an id1ot. [/color]

Do you think this information is fake?

At the moment Vladimir Putin has been arrested in US when he went for visit. He was mistakenly arrested due to... Click on the link below to read more and see what US Citizens have to say about the arrest.

http://seggzz2005..com.ng/2016/08/vladimir-putin-arrested-at-us.html

Defining God is easy. Just call yourself Christian or Muslim and you will have defined your god.

I don't belong to any organized religion and so I'm neither Christian nor a Muslim. I am a kind of deist.I said that to define god now is hasty generalization and is illogical. I cannot say for now this the definition of god.I said from my post that we need to have enough information for the painting(the creation) before we can understand the painter( the creator).

Take your painting analogy. We behold a portrait and correctly assume that it was painted. First, only humans or animals can paint. So we already come with a preconceived notion that a human or animal painted all paintings on earth. However, when it comes to the universe, we have NEVER witnessed one being made before. Humans no fit create am, neither can a monkey or chicken.

I am really glad for that bolded statements. You know that there is painting and you saw the painting and the brushes and the rest but couldn't see the painter. Is it reasonable to conclude there is no painter whereas you saw the painting? Maybe you were blinded by religious doctrine waiting to see one created being(lol). What has one being created got do with atheist conclusion of no god?

All we can say is that it looks complex and detailed oriented therefore a universe maker did it. Deists choose to stop there and are content with that knowledge.
.Christians and Muslims don't stop there. They claim that some thousands of years ago, the universe maker spoke to someone and confirmed its identity. It then gave them instructions. Some Christians hilariously believe that the thing speaks today, defeating the whole point of writing the bible. If your god speaks today, then why did it transcribe the bible? Is there a plan to add something else?

There different types of deist. What most deist claim in the world is that they don't belong to any organized religion. They also reason to believe that there should be a creator since we have the creation. We don't have a universal definition for god. We need to study the painting before we can understand the creator. We have just the tip knowledge of the painting now. We don't even know the painting styles, brushes properties and the rest about the painting not to say of the painter. We are just in the infant stage. Science knows that their study too is in infancy stage. We need to wait or do you fear waiting? Atheist do fear waiting and so they conclude there is no god without proofs.

[quote author=oaroloye post=48926570]SHALOM!

The great Stumbling Block to Atheism was that no one could come up with an explanation of LIFE.

Therefore, when CHARLES DARWIN came out with his Theory of Evolution, Atheists pounced on it, like a Rivers State Ferry Disaster Victim, who cannot swim (YEAH- AND WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? WHY WON'T PEOPLE LEARN HOW TO SWIM BEFORE GETTING ON A FERRY? DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THEY CAN TAKE OF THEIR TROUSERS, TIE THE LEGS, DO UP THE ZIP AND WAISTBAND, AND TRAP AIR INSIDE TO SUPPORT THEM INDEFINITELY?

The truth is that most atheist can't say the reason for their atheism. They don't have evidence for their belief and they rely on science that is plague with its own problems and limitations. Their belief is also dogmatic as Christians. There is something scientists called the dark matter in the galaxy. Science don't have explanation on specific general properties of it. They couldn't know how to explain to people that it exists.

THERE IS THE REAL SCIENCE, WHICH IS KNOWN ONLY TO THE CHOSEN FEW OF THE INNER CIRCLES AND UPPER HIERARCHIES- and there is what they will tell you in SCHOOL- otherwise known as "POOP."

They know all about GOD and the Paths leading to Him, and the Paths that don't.

Therefore, they are able to instruct their stooges which arguments to pursue, and which to ignore.

What is this real science that is above the study of nature or creation? When ever i speak of nature some only thinks of planets and so. Nature comprises of all non man made things which include You(human and other living things), planets, galaxy(s) and many more...

OYINBO ACADEMIA want it known that their Theories are the best explanation for anything, and that nobody can know better than them.

NEVER FORGET that what you are talking about is "ORGANIZED ATHEISM:" and not people who naturally disbelieve in God, but are looking for Knowledge.

These are wicked people, who have been coached in what to say, and how to prevent Theists from winning arguments.

Don't just blame the whites also blame the blacks because they contribute more to their problem than them. A stranger can't know your family better than yourself. Christianity and Islam for example is more prominent in Africa than the native countries. Most Africans now take Quran and Bible as the words of good. They are yet to learn a lesson from the first slave in Africa. They forget that scripture is meant to take us as slaves. The scriptures make us see our blood sisters and brothers as enemies. You are still blinded by this human made books!

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!

If you are a Hypocrite, you will go to HELL, pleading with Yahshua:

"But Lord, Lord! I believe in you! I have debated ATHEISTS for you!"

So you are defending your own bible god? There are proofs that bible is not the words of god. Your bible is full with contradictions, terrors, slavery, repettions, immoral teachings and the likes. Don't just bring that man made book forward.
Can you prove that your bible is the word of god?

seggzz:
I have no final answer for the real definition of GOD now because we have begin to see there are a lot of things scientists has no explanation for even if they existed. Science stage of findings is still in elementary and we can see some sort of bias in some of its theories and laws. So why make hasty generalization of no god? As i said before, i mean knowledge and reason need to grow to first understand the nature(creation) before we dismiss any creator. To defined this is what god is bias and lack reasons but does not mean we cannot wait to study the creation. It is only Atheists who cannot wait and conclude there is no creator. I am being honest now that i don't have enough information to define the concept of God. The only thing i always disagree with atheist is that God doesn't exist. I am a deist and we don't share any ideologies with Christians except the creator they are dogmatic about. Most of our ideologies are same with atheist except their dogma belief in non existence of god. In the first place i asked three questions in my first post and yet no answer. Then you expect me to throw more light on yours, ehn? We don't claim to have answers to all things. We are also scientists who spend our time making findings on nature but atheists claim to know and so they conclude there is no god. Do you want to dismiss there is no creation? If there is creation it makes sense to still accept for now there is a creator than your conclusion. It is really childish and illogical to asked me to prove who create god and yet you can't prove the nature is accidental or eternal within nature. I think nature is not made up by anybody, so is nature a creation, eternal within nature or accidental? if you claim nature is not a creation.

raphieMontella:
u seem not to understand..
U cannot disprove the quantum multiverse through science..

i may not be important...
Bt as u can see..it is my belief..so?

i cant see any contradictions..i said in both places..it aint finished
so

it was our ignorance then...likewise now....corelate



see me see wahala?
You are the proposer of god..
Prove him??


is atheism a group?
Whats this guy saying sef?



u have no proof of god...
If u do..spill it..not these long rigmaroles

What is this guying saying? what is a group? Don't you know atheist is a group under atheism belief? You are only deviating from the thread. I posted three questions with explanation under them. I doubt if you read them with understanding because you won't just be deviating and be claiming you are passing any message. Do you know Professor Anthony Flew? He was arguably the most influential and most influential philosophical atheist. He converted to deist saying atheists are not honest with their beliefs. I am sure you would find out more about him. You lacked arguments ingredients and so do deviate. Let me give prove that saying god exist is reasonable than atheists saying "God does not exist or there is no god". I would prove god in the following statements:

(1). There is a nature(creation)

(2). The nature is an intelligent design

(3). God is an intelligent designer Your DNA is one of this design.

Oya prove me wrong if you can. Please don't run away or deviate as you normally do. I also said we have little information to fully conclude that there is no god. And to just conclude there is no god is the same as dogmatism.

You could prove me wrong in the above statements if you can(lol)

ValentineMary:
I hope u know the bold text makes no sense u are asking me to prove a figure u made up. Oya clap for urself.

If the number one is ur evidence, then u have zero evidence. Must the world be created what if it was what makes u sure a God did it why can't it be by a spontaneous reaction? since we have seen something come out of nothing in quantum mechanics, and the classical world (large world) is made up of the small can't also these small particles accumulate over time to what we have today?
Even if we don't know in details how the universe came about, putting an imaginary character to fill ur ignorance is not plaudable. We don't know simply means we don't know it does not mean God did it. Let us assume u were born in 1567 and I asked u how we get hurricane, u would quickly say "The Gods are angry". Using a made up character to fill ur ignorance is intellectual sloth.

And if u claim God made the universe, who made God?

I have no final answer for the real definition of GOD now because we have begin to see there are a lot of things scientists has no explanation for even if they existed. Science stage of findings is still in elementary and we can see some sort of bias in some of its theories and laws. So why make hasty generalization of no god? As i said before, i mean knowledge and reason need to grow to first understand the nature(creation) before we dismiss any creator. To defined this is what god is bias and lack reasons but does not mean we cannot wait to study the creation. It is only Atheists who cannot wait and conclude there is no creator. I am being honest now that i don't have enough information to define the concept of God. The only thing i always disagree with atheist is that God doesn't exist. I am a deist and we don't share any ideologies with Christians except the creator they are dogmatic about. Most of our ideologies are same with atheist except their dogma belief in non existence of god. In the first place i asked three questions in my first post and yet no answer. Then you expect me to throw more light on yours, ehn? We don't claim to have answers to all things. We are also scientists who spend our time making findings on nature but atheists claim to know and so they conclude there is no god. Do you want to dismiss there is no creation? If there is creation it makes sense to still accept for now there is a creator than your conclusion. It is really childish and illogical to asked me to prove who create god and yet you can't prove the nature is accidental or eternal within nature. I think nature is not made up by anybody, so is nature a creation, eternal within nature or accidental? if you claim nature is not a creation.

raphieMontella:
I'll start by clearing myself...im an agnostic atheist...
Time may not have started with our universe....The quantum multiverse theory is a theory which if proven completely..proves the universe needed no creator

raphieMontella post=48900887:
.lol..its not a guess...particles exists in all states until they are measured..u,,the universe and i are made of particles...corelate.
it has not been proven to my satisfaction..thats why i said so..
relax...let an equation for quantum gravity be made..u will understand what i am saying...
lol..a simple question..is nature a system?
read up quantum fluctuations and HUP
who said newton created gravity?
Keep on confusing yourself ni..
oh..u wish to rely on gods as causes of thunder and lightning?
Goodluck to you then..
science can only be limited when we know everything...
but u choose to be dogmatic
it is not illogical..
yes...sure
..u lost me here
doesnt prove creation..
i said...i am an agnostic atheist..i cannot conclude on what i do not know..i cannot tell u what i do not know..

....
And our universe may have an end..
the stars are in the universe..nobody said earth is eternal oga..
Earth is a planet that formed like one of the many other planets
it depends...
In
Quantum mechanics...quantum particles pop into existence and out without a creator...so its not necessarily a creator must have been
no one said scientists just form laws and it becomes generally accepted as fact...what u saying bro?
the first mistake u can ever make is concluding that there is and must be just one God...
U believe a painting without a painter is illogical..
A huge enormous painting with different concepts in that painting(the painted stuff) may require more than one painter...each with his own painting ideas..and they combine to create a perfect potrait..
i largely doubt...
When quantum physics is finally properly understood...and a quantum theory of gravity is found..god will be hanging on a thread..
absolute atheism is gnostic atheism...not necessarily general atheism..
was it only a singular person that created your tv set?

please, who can see what i am seeing. Is the two bolded statements the same? You sound so important as if you gave them money to prove for you. The two bolded statements is already a confirmed contradictions in logic.

How does lightning or thunder has to do with the questions you refused to answer.Clearly tell me you don't know just as the other guy and stop bragging of being atheist without proof. According to webster dictionary a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned(PROOF) or doubted is a dogma. Since you lack any evidence of proof, your atheism is dogmatic. My believe is not dogmatic because i have the evidence of proof. I have this opinion that we don't have ALL the information we need to understand the paint and what the canvass is composed of, the relationship of the individual paints, and the brushstrokes. Now we can't define the painter because we don't even have enough information of the painting and the rest. And do we conclude there is no painter when we have the painting? It is big NO because we can still wait. It is both dogmatic and irrational for us to just conclude there is no painter since we have the painting without evidence.

agwom:
Poverty can not stop you from singing praises to the lord your God..

watch this video below!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ude9DaBbEw

What has this post got to do with the question on ground. You decided to deviated on the debate on ground and rush to present an irrelevant post. You should have come out with better points than this. Read my first post and provide the needed gap or answers that needed to be filled. Atheism is dogmatic and has followers who are either purposefully or ignorantly follow its belief. You shouldn't base your belief of my friend say or i want join the caucus. Don't make any rubbish posts like this again!

ValentineMary:
Sorry to disappoint u, I can't prove there is no creator the same way I can't prove that spongbob does not live beneth the Pacific ocean. U made the claim that God exist, then the burden lies on u to prove. How can I disprovr what u have not proved it's like mr walking up to you on a good Monday morning and saying dude I believe trees talk at night at my friends place in Iraq, prove me wrong.
Would it make sense

It is glaring here that you are deviating and not being honest with the question i asked in my first post. As you said you can't prove there is no creator and you concluded that there is no creator. Is it really sensible not to have evidence for your belief. I have debated against Christians, Muslims and other dogmatics belief like yours(Atheism). If you vividly read my first post you would agree with me that i said atheists like to shift the burden of proof from themselves to their debating opponents; in short, the believer in God must prove God, but the atheist will not defend his position that the universe is either eternal or accidental. Is this really honest? They Knew they can't prove their belief and they result to shifting the burden of proof to their debaters. Just as i said this is one of their weakness. Atheists accused Christians or other religion of believing in a lie so are atheists who lacked evidence in what they believe rather dodge questions by putting burden on proof on others.The burden of proof does not lie on the open mind, but on the closed dogmatic mind which assumes that we already know all there is to know. I have you heard Muslims saying Quran is sent by GOD? I am sure you would say it is not true because they lacked evidence to proof it. So is Atheism that lack evidence.

OK let us start in this way, before giving you the proof that the creator existed you have to respond to the following questions before i continue with my proof.

(1).My evidence is the creation(nature). So what is your evidence?

ValentineMary:
Hahahaha OP funny die. If I was to put up a thread to show weakness of theism, no theist go get mouth even comment. This is disappointing.

I am very sure you saw their posts. They couldn't give a valid and logical answers to my questions. They couldn't answer the questions rather they deviated. One said creation is eternal and the other disagree. To be sincere, do you think you have answers to my posts? If Yes, put it into writing. I doubt if you have any. I don't believe in any organized religious gods, so you can kindly post any questions that bothers your mind. Make sure you don't ask me any religious and dogmatic questions.

Starting from the last questions:
Can you prove with evidence there is no creator? Please don't give big bang theory because it is not enough proof for non existence of the creator. And many scientists disagree on it. What for your evidence? At least we can start from this question.

ValentineMary:
Hahahaha OP funny die. If I was to put up a thread to show weakness of theism, no theist go get mouth even comment. This is disappointing.

I am very sure you saw their posts. They couldn't give a valid and logical answers to my questions. One said creation said it is eternal and the other disagreeTo be sincere, do you think you have answers to my posts? If Yes, put it into writing. I doubt if you have any. I don't believe in any organized religious gods, so you can kindly post any questions that bothers your mind.

raphieMontella:
I'll start by clearing myself...im an agnostic atheist...

Time may not have started with our universe....The quantum multiverse theory is a theory which if proven completely..proves the universe needed no creator....
And our universe may have an end..

the stars are in the universe..nobody said earth is eternal oga..
Earth is a planet that formed like one of the many other planets

it depends...
In
Quantum mechanics...quantum particles pop into existence and out without a creator...so its not necessarily a creator must have been

no one said scientists just form laws and it becomes generally accepted as fact...what u saying bro?

the first mistake u can ever make is concluding that there is and must be just one God...
U believe a painting without a painter is illogical..
A huge enormous painting with different concepts in that painting(the painted stuff) may require more than one painter...each with his own painting ideas..and they combine to create a perfect potrait..

i largely doubt...
When quantum physics is finally properly understood...and a quantum theory of gravity is found..god will be hanging on a thread..

absolute atheism is gnostic atheism...not necessarily general atheism..


was it only a singular person that created your tv set?

I am going to reply you in what i called 'Reply1 to 5'

Reply1: quantum multiverse theory is a guess and so it did not have any base to be accepted as evidence. As you have said it has not been proven completely. You shouldn't bring it into limelight at first. It is not even an evidence that a creator doesn't exist anyway. You have just succeeded in bringing rubbish evidence that doesn't have a proof.

Reply2:A guy with monicker EyeHateGod quoted me saying the nature is eternal.And now you are contradicting the guy that the earth is not eternal.I asked a question that is nature a creation, eternal to nature, or an accident within nature? You and the guy has forgotten humans is part of nature.Maybe you or the guy doesn't know what it means for nature to be eternal.

Reply3: I said I cannot have a TV without a creator and you said it all depends. How does it depend? Does scientists found that quantum particles have no creator? I would like to know the evidence for having this. You could link me science journals or others where science has proven quantum particles has no creator. I would be waiting for this proof.

Reply4: You said what do i mean in one of your statements. I mean scientists most important weapon is OBSERVATION. Scientists do not create what they observed. For example Isaac Newton law of gravity was through observation. Newton never created gravity but gave a name to the force. Does it mean gravity was not there before his observation? The answer is NO. I said in the post that science is still in its infancy stage and cannot be totally rely upon to generate our rationale. Science has some limitations and their findings is not dogmatic. A fact today maybe false tomorrow as science begin to advance.

Reply5: Can you read my posts again? I said it illogical to have painting without a painter. I think you agreed you agreed with me? It is still illogical to conclude that there is no paint since there exist a painter, Yes or No?

LASTLY, do you think a creation(nature) can exist without a creator? For you to say you are agnostic atheist, what evidence can you show scientifically that is behind your rationale(belief). For me, my evidence is nature and the organized arrangements of the universe. You are not even a original atheist. Atheists called you people babies that are sulking breasts milk. Again, what is the evidence behind your belief.