The Spirit (Hebrew Ruach / Greek Pneuma)

[Edwardo Piet]

Good points! Alcohol is an excellent example.

---

But alcohol isn't supernatural, its physical. Its natural. The alcohol part was a joke lol
I guess you're saying though that spirit isn't supernatural am I right? And spirit as in alcohol is a good example because it is natural and its called spirit.
But whats alcohol got to do with God, or the bible? If spirit is to be used in the same sense as alcohol how does that support the bible? And how is this any evidence for the teachings of the bible? How is this any proof or even evidence of the God of the bible?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Er ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense)?

Perhaps you should rephrase that, Kyu ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense) that you are aware of?

Firstly it was a (rhetorical?) question and secondly, inasmuch as anything can be certain given that there is absolutely bugger all validatable evidence for that being claimed, no ... there is no such thing as spirit.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Er ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense)?

Perhaps you should rephrase that, Kyu ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense) that you are aware of?

Firstly it was a (rhetorical?) question and secondly, inasmuch as anything can be certain given that there is absolutely bugger all validatable evidence for that being claimed, no ... there is no such thing as spirit.

Kyu

Yup, and Daystar, if supernatural spirit(s) is evidence for God and natural spririts such as alcohol is evidence for supernatural spririt(s)...does that mean that alchohol is evidence for God?
When I mentioned alchohol it was a joke about how you're being a bit pedantic overs silly things that don't make much sense because they have nothing to do with supernatural spirit or God. I didn't expect you to fall for it!

[Daystar]

Er ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense)?

Perhaps you should rephrase that, Kyu ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense) that you are aware of?

Firstly it was a (rhetorical?) question and secondly, inasmuch as anything can be certain given that there is absolutely bugger all validatable evidence for that being claimed, no ... there is no such thing as spirit.

Kyu

Interesting. Now, since you are so sure that there is no such thing as spirit you must know what spirit is supposed to have been. What is that?

---

Good points! Alcohol is an excellent example.

---

But alcohol isn't supernatural, is physical. Its natural. The alcohol part was a joke lol
I guess you're saying though that spirit isn't supernatural am I right? And spirit as in alcohol is a good example because it is natural and its called spirit.
But whats alcohol got to do with God, or the bible? If spirit is to be used in the same sense as alcohol how does that support the bible? And how is this any evidence for the teachings of the bible? How is this any proof or even evidence of the God of the bible?

The question is what is the spirit? Forget about god for a moment and ask yourself what is the spirit? What does the Bible say the spirit is and what does common use dictate that it is? How is it applied to alcohol?

What is the difference? What do you think it is. All of this influences what your position is on the subject but doesn't define what it is.

The Bible translates the Hebrew ruach (which means any invisible force that produces visible results) as wind, breeze, breath as well as spirit (mental inclination i.e. "He was mean spirited.") force of life, or spirit creatures.

Some of this is supernatural and some of it isn't. The natural you have no problem with but you object to and reject the supernatural because?

That is what you believe? That is what you were taught? Tradition? Culture? Because science can't prove it or test it or ignores it?

I don't care about that shit. Science doesn't know everything now does it. Or else (shudder) there would be no use for science.

Are you beginning to see? You have a religious and emotional attachment to science. It explains things to you - gives you some guidence and it is your salvation. Your hope. Religion.

It is, like all religion, a blinder.

[Edwardo Piet]

Er ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense)?

Perhaps you should rephrase that, Kyu ... there's no such thing as spirit (in a supernatural sense) that you are aware of?

Firstly it was a (rhetorical?) question and secondly, inasmuch as anything can be certain given that there is absolutely bugger all validatable evidence for that being claimed, no ... there is no such thing as spirit.

Kyu

Interesting. Now, since you are so sure that there is no such thing as spirit you must know what spirit is supposed to have been. What is that?

---

Good points! Alcohol is an excellent example.

---

But alcohol isn't supernatural, is physical. Its natural. The alcohol part was a joke lol
I guess you're saying though that spirit isn't supernatural am I right? And spirit as in alcohol is a good example because it is natural and its called spirit.
But whats alcohol got to do with God, or the bible? If spirit is to be used in the same sense as alcohol how does that support the bible? And how is this any evidence for the teachings of the bible? How is this any proof or even evidence of the God of the bible?

The question is what is the spirit? Forget about god for a moment and ask yourself what is the spirit? What does the Bible say the spirit is and what does common use dictate that it is? How is it applied to alcohol?

What is the difference? What do you think it is. All of this influences what your position is on the subject but doesn't define what it is.

The Bible translates the Hebrew ruach (which means any invisible force that produces visible results) as wind, breeze, breath as well as spirit (mental inclination i.e. "He was mean spirited.") force of life, or spirit creatures.

Some of this is supernatural and some of it isn't. The natural you have no problem with but you object to and reject the supernatural because?

That is what you believe? That is what you were taught? Tradition? Culture? Because science can't prove it or test it or ignores it?

I don't care about that shit. Science doesn't know everything now does it. Or else (shudder) there would be no use for science.

Are you beginning to see? You have a religious and emotional attachment to science. It explains things to you - gives you some guidence and it is your salvation. Your hope. Religion.

It is, like all religion, a blinder.

There are several definitions of spirit. It can mean supernatural spirit, it can mean spirit like alcohol spirit, it can mean spirit as in "Fighting spirit!", there is more than one definition. I think it means all 3, but I don't believe that a supernatural spirit exists, I only believe in the natural.
I am a monist materialist reductionist darwinian de facto atheist.
And by the way, if it says in the bible something thats also true in reality, as you rightly said, lets leave God out of this in this case. I mean that natural spirit is not evidence of supernatural spirit or God. If the bible says something that is true thats not evidence of God at all. And you can interpret it metaphorically so its very easy to make things true that are literally untrue. You can do that with a lot of things.
Science does not know everything. But it knows a hell of a lot of things and it has evidence for these things. Religion doesn't without science's help. There is no evidence for the supernatural.
Like I said if you consider the bible evidence of God then so is the Gospel of the FSM evidence of the FSM. WHATEVER it contains. I don't think its good for anyones mind to be open to believe in/have faith in stuff that there is no evidence for, its such nonsense. Believe in things for a reason, I think you need evidence first.
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." - Richard Dawkins.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Interesting. Now, since you are so sure that there is no such thing as spirit you must know what spirit is supposed to have been. What is that?

I know I spent 13 years as a good Catholic boy but you're asking me to define spirit when I don't even believe it exists? When the definition you'll get from various theists will vary from person to person? I think it makes far more sense that YOU give us a definition of what spirit is to YOU and then we can tell you why the idea is rubbish

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

What spirit is supposed to have been? What are you talking about Daystar? It obviously doesn't matter what spirit means at all, the definition of spirit is not evidence of its existence in reality.
The definition of the word 'Goblin' is not evidence for the existence of Goblins in reality!
Evidence please.

[Daystar]

There are several definitions of spirit. It can mean supernatural spirit, it can mean spirit like alcohol spirit, it can mean spirit as in "Fighting spirit!", there is more than one definition. I think it means all 3, but I don't believe that a supernatural spirit exists, I only believe in the natural.

The words translated as spirit can also be translated as more practical things that you can understand, like wind, breath; I think that this is important to you, the atheist, because theist often don't understand fully the meaning of those words and considering the pagan influence in modern day Xian teachings that can be some useful information. It allows you to take a more scientific approach to the Bible and dismiss the pagan (outside) influences.

As regarding the 'supernatural' can you elaborate on what exactly that word means to you.

[ . . . ] And you can interpret it metaphorically so its very easy to make things true that are literally untrue. You can do that with a lot of things.

This is one reason why it is so important for me to be allowed to use scripture as evidence for God. There are two ways to interpret anything. The right and the wrong way. The Bible is in harmony with itself and any interpretation must fit in with the rest of it. Kind of like theory and science. If I try to interpret the spirit as some personage or mystical immortal part of a living thing - exclusive to humans etc. as religion has often done, those interpretations don't hold water to someone educated in the proper meaning.

Science does not know everything. But it knows a hell of a lot of things and it has evidence for these things. Religion doesn't without science's help. There is no evidence for the supernatural.

Your argument would be far more appreciated by me if you wouldn't use the term Religion in the context that you use it above. I hate religion. Religion is bullshit. Use the Bible instead of religion and you will make a stronger more precise point with me.

The Bible has been taken as false in certain historical statements until archaeology has demonstrated otherwise. In other words 'science' (used in a similar context as 'religion') and historians will say the Bible was wrong and science scoffs at the Bible and then archaeology discovers something that proves the BIble was right all along. Suddenly the Bible is vindicated in that sense because archaeology (scientists or historians or archaeologist who had questioned the Bible) had been wrong all along.

The point is that people tend to take 'science' and 'history' as infallible without realizing that the Bible keeps on proving itself. I personally think that if in the end science proved everything written in the Bible - even the supernatural - atheist like you would still reject it either out of ignorance or stubbornness but what you have to realize is that that isn't the point anyway. It is a good idea to educate yourself on the Bible and loathsome religion but if you don't like the idea of the Sovereignty of the creator and his will and all he stands for that is your personal choice.

As the Bible says, the demons know and yet shudder.

There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out.

Sure, and sometimes free thinking is only the guise for freedom of thought. I said that.

"He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) The Egyptians said it was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant.

The Bible states: "Star differs from star in glory." Scientists now know that there are blue stars, yellow ones, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and others. (1 Corinthians 15:41)

Centuries before naturalists were aware of migration, Jeremiah wrote (seventh century B.C.E.) "The stork in the sky knows the time to migrate, the dove and the swift and the wryneck know the season of return." (Jeremiah 8:7, The New English Bible.

A thousand years before Christ, Solomon wrote in figurative language about the circulation of the blood. (Ecclesiastes 12:6) Medical science did not understand it until the 15th century C.E.

The Mosaic Law (16th century B.C.E.) reflected awareness of disease germs thousands of years before Pasteur. - Leviticus, chapters 13, 14.

The creation account of Genesis is accurate biology - testified to by the fossil record and by modern genetics - when it says that each family kind was to reproduce "according to its kind." - Genesis 1:12, 21, 25

The genetic blueprint in the fertilized human egg cell contains programs for all the bodily parts before any hint of their presence. Compare Psalm 139:16: "Your eyes [Jehovah's] saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them."

[Edwardo Piet]

There are several definitions of spirit. It can mean supernatural spirit, it can mean spirit like alcohol spirit, it can mean spirit as in "Fighting spirit!", there is more than one definition. I think it means all 3, but I don't believe that a supernatural spirit exists, I only believe in the natural.

The words translated as spirit can also be translated as more practical things that you can understand, like wind, breath; I think that this is important to you, the atheist, because theist often don't understand fully the meaning of those words and considering the pagan influence in modern day Xian teachings that can be some useful information. It allows you to take a more scientific approach to the Bible and dismiss the pagan (outside) influences.

As regarding the 'supernatural' can you elaborate on what exactly that word means to you.

[ . . . ] And you can interpret it metaphorically so its very easy to make things true that are literally untrue. You can do that with a lot of things.

This is one reason why it is so important for me to be allowed to use scripture as evidence for God. There are two ways to interpret anything. The right and the wrong way. The Bible is in harmony with itself and any interpretation must fit in with the rest of it. Kind of like theory and science. If I try to interpret the spirit as some personage or mystical immortal part of a living thing - exclusive to humans etc. as religion has often done, those interpretations don't hold water to someone educated in the proper meaning.

Science does not know everything. But it knows a hell of a lot of things and it has evidence for these things. Religion doesn't without science's help. There is no evidence for the supernatural.

Your argument would be far more appreciated by me if you wouldn't use the term Religion in the context that you use it above. I hate religion. Religion is bullshit. Use the Bible instead of religion and you will make a stronger more precise point with me.

The Bible has been taken as false in certain historical statements until archaeology has demonstrated otherwise. In other words 'science' (used in a similar context as 'religion') and historians will say the Bible was wrong and science scoffs at the Bible and then archaeology discovers something that proves the BIble was right all along. Suddenly the Bible is vindicated in that sense because archaeology (scientists or historians or archaeologist who had questioned the Bible) had been wrong all along.

The point is that people tend to take 'science' and 'history' as infallible without realizing that the Bible keeps on proving itself. I personally think that if in the end science proved everything written in the Bible - even the supernatural - atheist like you would still reject it either out of ignorance or stubbornness but what you have to realize is that that isn't the point anyway. It is a good idea to educate yourself on the Bible and loathsome religion but if you don't like the idea of the Sovereignty of the creator and his will and all he stands for that is your personal choice.

As the Bible says, the demons know and yet shudder.

There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out.

Sure, and sometimes free thinking is only the guise for freedom of thought. I said that.

"He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) The Egyptians said it was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant.

The Bible states: "Star differs from star in glory." Scientists now know that there are blue stars, yellow ones, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and others. (1 Corinthians 15:41)

Centuries before naturalists were aware of migration, Jeremiah wrote (seventh century B.C.E.) "The stork in the sky knows the time to migrate, the dove and the swift and the wryneck know the season of return." (Jeremiah 8:7, The New English Bible.

A thousand years before Christ, Solomon wrote in figurative language about the circulation of the blood. (Ecclesiastes 12:6) Medical science did not understand it until the 15th century C.E.

The Mosaic Law (16th century B.C.E.) reflected awareness of disease germs thousands of years before Pasteur. - Leviticus, chapters 13, 14.

The creation account of Genesis is accurate biology - testified to by the fossil record and by modern genetics - when it says that each family kind was to reproduce "according to its kind." - Genesis 1:12, 21, 25

The genetic blueprint in the fertilized human egg cell contains programs for all the bodily parts before any hint of their presence. Compare Psalm 139:16: "Your eyes [Jehovah's] saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them."

I think you are what Dawkins describes since your mind is open to the argument from scripture and the argument from personal experience. Surely there's better things to open your mind to. Sure be open to them as possibilites but they are not probable ones.

[Kyuuketsuki]

As regarding the 'supernatural' can you elaborate on what exactly that word means to you.

Anything claimed for which there is no validatable or actual evidence and since nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist (for in that moment of demonstration it instantly becomes natural) it's easy enough to see that anything supposedly supernatural can be ignored (hint: it's not real anyway).

This is one reason why it is so important for me to be allowed to use scripture as evidence for God. There are two ways to interpret anything. The right and the wrong way. The Bible is in harmony with itself and any interpretation must fit in with the rest of it. Kind of like theory and science. If I try to interpret the spirit as some personage or mystical immortal part of a living thing - exclusive to humans etc. as religion has often done, those interpretations don't hold water to someone educated in the proper meaning.

As I said earlier (another thread), you CAN use the bible as evidence but no secularist will accept such references as truly valid until such time as you can demonstrate the veracity of the scriptures themselves (and not just selected bits).

Your argument would be far more appreciated by me if you wouldn't use the term Religion in the context that you use it above. I hate religion. Religion is bullshit. Use the Bible instead of religion and you will make a stronger more precise point with me.

Does anyone care whether they suck up to you? I doubt it.

The Bible has been taken as false in certain historical statements until archaeology has demonstrated otherwise. In other words 'science' (used in a similar context as 'religion') and historians will say the Bible was wrong and science scoffs at the Bible and then archaeology discovers something that proves the BIble was right all along. Suddenly the Bible is vindicated in that sense because archaeology (scientists or historians or archaeologist who had questioned the Bible) had been wrong all along.

The bible has not been demonstrated to be true, even archaeologically ... it has historical value but there are inaccuracies such as (if memory serves) the fact that Tyre exists. The bible is an historical source but it IS NOT an accurate historical account.

The point is that people tend to take 'science' and 'history' as infallible without realizing that the Bible keeps on proving itself. I personally think that if in the end science proved everything written in the Bible - even the supernatural - atheist like you would still reject it either out of ignorance or stubbornness but what you have to realize is that that isn't the point anyway. It is a good idea to educate yourself on the Bible and loathsome religion but if you don't like the idea of the Sovereignty of the creator and his will and all he stands for that is your personal choice.

No the bible does not keep on "proving itself".

As the Bible says, the demons know and yet shudder.

Yawn!

"He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) The Egyptians said it was supported by pillars; the Greeks said by Atlas; others said by an elephant.

The Bible states: "Star differs from star in glory." Scientists now know that there are blue stars, yellow ones, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and others. (1 Corinthians 15:41)

Centuries before naturalists were aware of migration, Jeremiah wrote (seventh century B.C.E.) "The stork in the sky knows the time to migrate, the dove and the swift and the wryneck know the season of return." (Jeremiah 8:7, The New English Bible.

A thousand years before Christ, Solomon wrote in figurative language about the circulation of the blood. (Ecclesiastes 12:6) Medical science did not understand it until the 15th century C.E.

The Mosaic Law (16th century B.C.E.) reflected awareness of disease germs thousands of years before Pasteur. - Leviticus, chapters 13, 14.

Bored now!

The creation account of Genesis is accurate biology - testified to by the fossil record and by modern genetics - when it says that each family kind was to reproduce "according to its kind." - Genesis 1:12, 21, 25

No it isn't accurate, it has hares chewing cuds FFS!

The genetic blueprint in the fertilized human egg cell contains programs for all the bodily parts before any hint of their presence. Compare Psalm 139:16: "Your eyes [Jehovah's] saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them."

Oh you really are devious aren't you? It doesn't say "embryo" at all, it says "Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

It says NOTHING about the human embryo at all!!!!

Kyu