Channel 9 - Discussions by billh

Coffeehouse - It's Quiet

billh — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:10:19 GMT

Hope nobody takes offense to this...I haven't been here in a while...but what happened to all the deep tech discussions that used to happen around here? It seems kind of quiet lately...especially on the weekends...

Coffeehouse - I'm back

billh — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:22:46 GMT

Colin Angus Mackay wrote:

A guy I know who used to run Alpha Courses (i.e. he'd convert people to Christianity) but is now an atheist told me that one of the reasons he quit was that he'd convert people who had a problem. That would work out for a while until something happened and they fell back into their old habits. e.g. An alcoholic becomes tee-total for a while after "finding god" but for what ever reason falls off the wagon. This time round they fall much harder than they did before. Because this time they hate themselves for what ever it is they don't want to be doing, but this time round god hates them too.

He realised that what was getting people out of their hole was personal will power. It was nothing to do with supernatural beings living in the sky. Yes, people occasionally failed, but when they failed "with God" they got in much worse mess than they were in before. When they failed and it was just them they weren't burdened with the additional distress of having disappointed some mythical bearded guy which they had taken to be real.

So, in short, finding god is probably the worst solution to any problem.

Uh...the Alpha Courses have a few well known "issues", and one of their notable downfalls is that they tend to get people "hooked on an experience" rather than sticking to what the Bible says. In some cases, they can actually make things worse. And although I can't speak for the other poster, I would argue that medicine does have its place...and in some cases it is needed. But yeah, not dealing with people's underlying problems is not good either...oh and then there is this rather sobering passage...which seems to address things such as false conversions. But it's not a person's job to force somebody else to convert.

btw, hi Rory. Welcome back!

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:27:37 GMT

odujosh wrote:

billh wrote:

odujosh wrote:
Christian nations have done amoral things throught history. Thus you cannot demean a group based off your own ideals. For your group does not always hold to the same ideal.

Define "Christian nation". And being "Christian" does not mean a person is without fault...quite the contrary, it's actually an admission in many ways that you can never be truly "faultless" by your own abilities. And, as stated before, many things have been done in the name of one religion or another...that does not change the core truth one bit.

Take any medieval european country. Ruled by the theocracy by extension of the king. If you ask any historian thats why the pilgrims came to america to get away from religious persicution. Guess who instigated that?

Although I'm not well versed on Pilgrim history, didn't they carry much of those beliefs overseas with them?

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:10:02 GMT

odujosh wrote:

Christian nations have done amoral things throught history. Thus you cannot demean a group based off your own ideals. For your group does not always hold to the same ideal.

Define "Christian nation". And being "Christian" does not mean a person is without fault...quite the contrary, it's actually an admission in many ways that you can never be truly "faultless" by your own abilities. And, as stated before, many things have been done in the name of one religion or another...that does not change the core truth one bit.

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:04:22 GMT

blowdart wrote:

And unmathematical; redefining pi in 1 Kings 7, verse 23.

Heh...I just learned something today. Try drawing this picture:

NKJV wrote:

²³ And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. ²⁴ Below its brim were ornamental buds encircling it all around, ten to a cubit, all the way around the Sea. The ornamental buds were cast in two rows when it was cast. ²⁵ It stood on twelve oxen: three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; the Sea was set upon them, and all their back parts pointed inward.²⁶ It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It contained two thousand baths.

When I reread this, does it mean the ten cubits is being measured from the outer edge of the rim to the other outer edge? Is the circumference measurement on the inside or the outside of the rim? Did the Sea's top rim have a width to it...maybe a handbreadth? In verse 26, it is still describing the Sea, as having it's brim like the brim of a cup...like a lily blossom. Now lilies typically have a wide brim that quickly tapers down to the base of the blossom/stem...so what are the measurements actually describing?

Edit: it also appears the definition of "cubit" has changed a bit over the years...

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:17:50 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

The word is loaded with examples throughout both Testaments...for all types of purposes...thanksgiving, asking for wisdom, making requests.

Don't forget praying for children to be torn apart by bears because they teased you about being bald

Oh, you mean this passage? But you didn't bring up the one about the Baal worshippers vs. Elijah and the sacrifices catching fire and all that.

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:09:12 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

So let me guess...you've had prayers that weren't answered at some point? Anyway, what is your threshold of "proof" in any situation then? At what point do you say "I have enough proof".

That's avoiding the point I was making about having to belief the documentation of true.

And as you've said already, if you're not supposed to put God to the test, then you shouldn't be asking for things in your prayers. If you believe it.

I'm not avoiding anything. Yes, a certain amount of faith is required. From a logical standpoint it would be absurd for me to make it a requirement that I have to go back in time and space 2,000 years and witness the Resurrection. Do I believe World War II happened? Of course I do. Am I saying faith is an easy thing? Nope.

Re: prayers...

The word is loaded with examples throughout both Testaments...for all types of purposes...thanksgiving, asking for wisdom, making requests. By "testing God" I'm talking about throwing yourself off a cliff (for example) and saying "catch me!" Moses prayed. Samuel prayed. Paul prayed. The list is endless.

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:50:55 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:
You seem to think that people who "believe" do so out of a lack of critical thinking skills

But the whole idea of faith is to believe despite your critical thinking skills. It is belief not based on proof.

I guess it depends how you define critical thinking of course.

IMHO, The purpose of some of the miracles in the New Testament was to offer the "proof" that many people desire. Read the end of John 20:

NIV wrote:
³⁰ Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹ But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The miracles were written down for a reason...to record an accurate account.

Again no. Because you have to have "faith" that they are an accurate account of "proof".

And again you know this.

So let me guess...you've had prayers that weren't answered at some point? Anyway, what is your threshold of "proof" in any situation then? At what point do you say "I have enough proof".

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:49:09 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

blowdart wrote:
And growing up in Northern Ireland you don't escape experience of the church at all.

And what did that experience teach you? Did anybody in the congregations you visited routinely study the Word? Did they routinely pray? Was their relationship with God authentic? (Although I suppose it could be argued that nobody could ever ascertain that for sure by simply looking at someone else's life, but it becomes fairly clear at a certain point).

Fairly clear? Are we back to counting good works and attitude again, with the assertion that athiests or those not of your faith cannot perform them?

And you know fine well that study and prayer are not indications of faith at all; as you seem to indicate with question 3, so why put them there?

I know full well that athiests are very capable of performing "good works". I'm not disputing that.

My point about study and prayer is that you can tell quite quickly who is doing it and who is not..."by their fruits you shall know them" and all that. And yes, it is an indication of faith. I should have elaborated a little bit better with my point...but what I was getting at was people who were putting on a show for others and not actually living out what they read/supposedly believed. Of course, this sort of thing affects many groups of people, regardless of belief system.

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:44:58 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:
You seem to think that people who "believe" do so out of a lack of critical thinking skills

But the whole idea of faith is to believe despite your critical thinking skills. It is belief not based on proof.

I guess it depends how you define critical thinking of course.

IMHO, The purpose of some of the miracles in the New Testament was to offer the "proof" that many people desire. Read the end of John 20:

NIV wrote:

³⁰ Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹ But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The miracles were written down for a reason...to record an accurate account.

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:40:07 GMT

blowdart wrote:

And growing up in Northern Ireland you don't escape experience of the church at all.

And what did that experience teach you? Did anybody in the congregations you visited routinely study the Word? Did they routinely pray? Was their relationship with God authentic? (Although I suppose it could be argued that nobody could ever ascertain that for sure by simply looking at someone else's life, but it becomes fairly clear at a certain point).

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:37:54 GMT

SlackmasterK wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:
You assume that in the absense of a god, we'll all decide to just screw over our fellow man. Which makes me think that for religists, the only thing keeping them within the rule is the fear of god. That makes them much more scary.

You seem to think that people who "believe" do so out of a lack of critical thinking skills or out of fear...that is a mass generalization. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but I clearly assert to you that is not the case in numerous peoples' lives.

Coffeehouse - How do Atheists find hope?

billh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:17:06 GMT

Er...the problem with that article is that is gives very little background as to what the man really believed. Was he a lifelong athiest? You are assuming he was a Christian based on one phrase. Did he not read in the Bible where it explicitly states "not to put God to the test"?

Anyway, in reading all of these thoughtful posts above, I'm wondering why you (blowdart) keep looping back to the concept that Christians can't think for themselves or see prayer as a copout for coping with reality. It sounds like an opinion based on stereotypes rather than experience. It could also be conversely argued that athiesm is a crutch for people who refuse to be held accountable to God.

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:50:42 GMT

Larsenal wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:

I would suggest (as others have done, also) that we don't get into this. I respect your right to believe, but I do not and will not respect your actual beliefs. This cannot end well, and it has only a cursory pertinence to the topic.

For the sake of avoiding the dreaded thread lock, I agree with Scan. (However, billh, our actual beliefs are likely similar.)

Okay, fine. Intellectual arguments are nice and all that, and there certainly is plenty of room for them in this particular area, but the evidence is quite ample if you actually would take the time to discuss it with missionaries who have returned from various countries, and have seen actual miracles. Edit: They are given to people to help them believe and the did not end with the beginnings of the church in the New Testament era.

So back to the original topic...humans do have a natural sense of morals. Whether they act on them is another thing.

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:23:08 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

blowdart wrote:
Even truth can be relative

So, uh, this line is relative too, eh?

Romans 14:11-13

Oh I was getting to religion don't worry

I would concede that *you* believe it's true.

But it is the truth. Just as there is an abundance of philosophies in the world, the existence of multiple religions in the world does not constitute that they all have an equal share of the truth. There have been numerous prophets for varying religions throughout history, however, only one person has actually claimed to be the Son of God and has the evidence to back it up.

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:14:03 GMT

blowdart wrote:

Even truth can be relative

So, uh, this line is relative too, eh?

Romans 14:11-13

NIV wrote:

11 It is written:
   " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
   'every knee will bow before me;
      every tongue will confess to God.' "
12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Coffeehouse - Meme wars

billh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:25:46 GMT

Massif wrote:

If these information virii are using you as a host are you culpable for actions they inspire? (which boils down to, "is there free will?" an age-old and classic debate, to which many people have decided the answer is "no")

There is free will. Not choosing to believe in it doesn't change the fact that it exists...it's just a cop out for irresponsible actions.

This reminds me of a discussion I heard recently where someone asked "is sin solely based on your genes?"

Coffeehouse - Meme wars

billh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:01:28 GMT

Massif wrote:

There's a seductive thought there: that it's our belief systems, not us which leads us into conflict, and that as such it's our beliefs which are culpable, independant of us.

Yes and no. Yes, because belief systems do drive people to do lots of things. No, because suggesting such an absolute answer takes away from the concept of personal responsibility (i.e. free will, remorse, etc.).

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:07:34 GMT

Larsenal wrote:

Billh, let's not get into that discussion. You'll have a more difficult time in that territory, I think.

Okay.

I tried...

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:05:54 GMT

blowdart wrote:

I haven't read it for years, but I have read it, on a regular basis in my youth.

So you're saying then that some laws aren't as important as others? So in fact obeying those laws are optional? So slavery isn't ok? I don't have to stone my sister? You've just proved my point by saying it's OK to ignore parts of biblical "law"/belief.

Who said anything about optional obeying of laws? It's also written that the Law would end up being written in people's hearts. 10 points if you can name the part where it says that. Regarding the pig issue, Peter had a vision about this...and was told that all foods were essentially acceptable (New Testament). 5 points if you can find that one. Besides, the point of New Testament is that you couldn't fulfill the Law if you tried. Hence, the cross.

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:58:06 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

blowdart wrote:
OK so the laws allowing slavery are true? The laws banning women from owning property are true? The laws only allowing rich land owners are true?

Of course not. The law changes. It's relative.

Which laws are you referring to? I was referring to Scripture.

Ah makebelieve

OK, so if biblical laws never change why haven't you stoned every american football player for touching the skin of a pig on the sabbath? Or people for wearing mixtured clothing?

Even if you believe it the new testament changed the rules and laws of the old testament. Again, not absolute.

I take it you haven't actually bothered to read the book.

Anyway, Jesus stated:

Matthew 5:17

NIV wrote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

The Book of Romans explains this idea rather well. Distinctions also need to be made between ceremonial/Levitical law and the other type of law (like the Ten Commandments). Besides, just because you personally have not witnessed a thriving congregation doesn't mean they don't exist.

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:45:23 GMT

blowdart wrote:

OK so the laws allowing slavery are true? The laws banning women from owning property are true? The laws only allowing rich land owners are true?

Of course not. The law changes. It's relative.

Which laws are you referring to? I was referring to Scripture.

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:39:21 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

Not really. My point is that morals are not relative at all...although that is a popular worldview nowadays. If morals are relative, what's the point of a legal system?

No, your side of the arguement says morals are not relative. But you're not backing it up (although it's probably hard to, it's all thought experiments)

The legal system simply enforces the majority view of what society should be (excluding dictatorships and so on). The fact that those in power can ignore it happily with little to no consequence shows that the law (and morals) are not an absolute.

The Law is truth whether or not you want to believe it in or not. How's that for a defense? To say that morals is nothing more than an endless succession of "thought experiments" is rather odd. I agree that legal systems can change (and have changed) repeatedly over time in various nations, and in various empires.

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:26:15 GMT

blowdart wrote:

billh wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:
All morals are relative, IMHO.

So then...what is truth to you? Is that a relative concept also?

Straw man, truth and axioms by definintion cannot be relative.

Not really. My point is that morals are not relative at all...although that is a popular worldview nowadays. If morals are relative, what's the point of a legal system?

Coffeehouse - Yes or No: are humans naturally moral?

billh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:20:38 GMT

ScanIAm wrote:

All morals are relative, IMHO.

So then...what is truth to you? Is that a relative concept also?