• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Looking For A Smart Atheist

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. These have been just for example.

The 'soul' which is an unfortunate translation of apparent necessity, is the life, life experiences of any breathing creature. It's the blood.

OK, there are three options here already: Life, life experience, or blood.

Which do you want to use? They are three different things.

“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the OT. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš, though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·khe′] is the NT word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

“The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul’) was comparable to nefesh.” - The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.” - The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.

“The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.” - Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

“Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.” - Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

“Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.” - Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

Hmm...as far as I can see, none of these says what the soul *is*. They talk a bit about different usages of the word. Which definition do you want to use as our default?

It seems that the Jewish version you prefer is somewhat similar to the notion of 'living body'. So what, if anything, is the difference between a soul and a living thing? Is 'having a soul' exactly the same as 'being alive'? if so, why two different words?
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Science, famously, does not prove anything. And nobody here is demanding science disproves that God exists either, are they? Who says science "must" do this?

I know science does not prove anything. I'm using the language she employed. You'll never see me saying prove other than responding to someone who I think I should not be critiqued on this, because I'd rather get to the meat of the argument.
No one, that I have seen, demands science to do anything. However, I think you fail to notice that Samantha Rinne is looking at science and, perhaps, expecting some kind of disproof. I'll quote her again, "to what I've found nothing in science that disproves the existence of God."

All Samantha was doing, surely, is making the uncontroversial observation that science doesn't settle the issue either way. (because it is not designed to do this.)

Perhaps she can say what she means. Nonetheless, I don't know what you mean by this. If there was something supernatural going on that was affecting the natural, it's verifiable. For example, I've read studies done to examine prayer. One such study asked nuns to pray for the good health of some participants in an Alzheimer's home or somesuch. The results were inconclusive, but this is an example of how you can test a supernatural claim indirectly.

The way I read it, Samantha is simply saying that an education in science leaves open the possibility of religious belief. Which is obvious - a large number of scientifically educated people are also religious believers: there is no conflict whatsoever.

Science does not conflict with belief. I agree. Though this is not what I'm talking about.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
See, you and I have had disagreements from time to time. You may be an unbeliever but you've either had some background formerly or something which makes you nearly as problematic as a believer. After more than two decades of doing this I will tend to walk straight away from a fairly knowledgeable Jew or Christian when it comes to a debate because they have all of the information they need to make an informed decision. If they want to make the wrong decision because they have some religious predilection there is very little I can do about that.

An atheist won't be as likely to have those predilections, or maybe that isn't the case, maybe it's more of a case of their not clinging doggedly to. Although that is certainly debatable. Sometimes I wonder . . .

Anyway, I like shooting ideas by smart open minded individuals without running head first into the wall of religiosity. Of course you and anyone else will be seeing the threads if they develop and can put your two cents in.
An oddly unconversational reply. You appear to be calling for a definition of the soul yet you offer no response to the issues raised.

What is it you're actually after?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I know science does not prove anything. I'm using the language she employed. You'll never see me saying prove other than responding to someone who I think I should not be critiqued on this, because I'd rather get to the meat of the argument.
No one, that I have seen, demands science to do anything. However, I think you fail to notice that Samantha Rinne is looking at science and, perhaps, expecting some kind of disproof. I'll quote her again, "to what I've found nothing in science that disproves the existence of God."



Perhaps she can say what she means. Nonetheless, I don't know what you mean by this. If there was something supernatural going on that was affecting the natural, it's verifiable. For example, I've read studies done to examine prayer. One such study asked nuns to pray for the good health of some participants in an Alzheimer's home or somesuch. The results were inconclusive, but this is an example of how you can test a supernatural claim indirectly.



Science does not conflict with belief. I agree. Though this is not what I'm talking about.
I have just re-read Samantha's post and it seems crystal clear to me. It is simply an argument against the false dichotomy between science and religion that so many people seem to assume must exist.

As for my sentence that you highlighted in bold, I am just saying that science does not settle the issue of the existence of God and saying this is not a controversial observation.
 

Earthling

David Henson
OK, there are three options here already: Life, life experience, or blood.

Which do you want to use? They are three different things.



Hmm...as far as I can see, none of these says what the soul *is*. They talk a bit about different usages of the word. Which definition do you want to use as our default?

It seems that the Jewish version you prefer is somewhat similar to the notion of 'living body'. So what, if anything, is the difference between a soul and a living thing? Is 'having a soul' exactly the same as 'being alive'? if so, why two different words?

It's not really the issue. All that was relevant was can the "soul" die or be destroyed. That is what the question was intended to establish. Nothing more. Can the soul, no matter what it is or how it's used, die or be destroyed according to the Bible. Then we take if from there, wherever necessary.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So, uh . . . as it turns out, I'm looking for a smart open minded atheist to devote . . . probably a few minutes a day, to a consideration - a test of sorts - of the Bible.

Difficult. Very difficult. Because what I mean by open minded is that the atheist has to be able to see the Bible without their preconceived notions. As a part of this team of Biblical examiners I would have to do the same.

Can it be done?
Perhaps one in twenty five is capable of doing what you suggest.

The new atheism isn´t just about idea´s, it is about anger, and feelings of superiority.

These emotions, though a new atheist will tell you he doesn´t have them, lie just below the surface, and will erupt the moment he feels threatened or challenged.
 

Earthling

David Henson
An oddly unconversational reply. You appear to be calling for a definition of the soul yet you offer no response to the issues raised.

What is it you're actually after?

I don't want a big long discussion on the soul right now.

My space bar is skipping, so . . . I'm trying to keep an eye on it.

Let me just explain what I want to do. I used the soul as an example because it was easy. What I want to do is run ideas by the atheist who has preconceived notions about what the Bible says. Not whether it's true etc. Just what message is it trying to convey?

That's all.

The soul: Can it die or be destroyed. That's all.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not really the issue. All that was relevant was can the "soul" die or be destroyed. That is what the question was intended to establish. Nothing more. Can the soul, no matter what it is or how it's used, die or be destroyed according to the Bible. Then we take if from there, wherever necessary.


The verses you quoted suggest that God can destroy souls.

Since I don't expect consistency from the Bible, I would not be surprised if other verses say the opposite.
 

Earthling

David Henson

What a stupid thing to say. I hate it when atheists do this, like everything is a scientific claim. Nothing matters except data that this vague Utopian force called science, who's methodology is infallible in so much as it prevents the possibility of error - may say. And yes, I know you will all jump on this and deny it but where, I now ask you, is the source?

Then you'll say something stupid, like it's my claim. . . blah, blah, blah. . .

It's like you all live in a science fiction novel.

Source? He said it. Because he observes it. Open your ****ing eyes and think for yourself without science. You don't have to agree with him or research the data, robot, just open your eyes and address what he said. It's not a phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I don't want a big long discussion on the soul right now.

My space bar is skipping, so . . . I'm trying to keep an eye on it.

Let me just explain what I want to do. I used the soul as an example because it was easy. What I want to do is run ideas by the atheist who has preconceived notions about what the Bible says. Not whether it's true etc. Just what message is it trying to convey?

That's all.

The soul: Can it die or be destroyed. That's all.
i think you have a preconceived notion. thinking that most atheists have bothered to even read all, or even most of the bible.


i can prove the soul dies. the graveyards are full of them. jesus died too.


Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life; and man became a living soul.

prior to god breathing the man was a lump of dust after adam stopped breathing he became a lump of earth.



the living soul called adam dies.

Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.



The Mosaic account of the creation of man speaks of a spirit or breath with which he was endowed by his Creator (Gen. ii. 7); but this spirit was conceived of as inseparably connected, if not wholly identified, with the life-blood (ib. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11). Only through the contact of the Jews with Persian and Greek thought did the idea of a disembodied soul, having its own individuality, take root in Judaism and find its expression in the later Biblical books, as, for instance, in the following passages: "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" (Prov. xx. 27); "There is a spirit in man" (Job xxxii. 8); "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccl. xii. 7). The soul is called in Biblical literature "ruaḥ," "nefesh," and "neshamah." The first of these terms denotes the spirit in its primitive state; the second, in its association with the body; the third, in its activity while in the body.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
The verses you quoted suggest that God can destroy souls.

Since I don't expect consistency from the Bible, I would not be surprised if other verses say the opposite.
just as an aside, have you fully read any of the canon's of the bible?
 

Earthling

David Henson
The verses you quoted suggest that God can destroy souls.

Since I don't expect consistency from the Bible, I would not be surprised if other verses say the opposite.

Okay . . . boy, I thought the soul would be easy.

God can destroy a soul. Can I? Can I have my soul destroyed? I will leave the scriptural reference up to you unless you say you've got nothing, but let me just give you the answer. The answer is yes to both questions. That's my position which you may not agree with
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
i think you have a preconceived notion. thinking that most atheists have bothered to even read all, or even most of the bible.

That may not even matter. I don't want a theological debate here. I'm running ideas by an atheist who has a capacity for logical thought. I give, as briefly as I can, possibilities. The Jews said this. The Christians say this: The Bible says this: This is a possible theological influence: This is the etymology: These sources say this: Now - what do you think?

i can prove the soul dies. the graveyards are full of them. jesus died too.


Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life; and man became a living soul.

prior to god breathing the man was a lump of dust after adam stopped breathing he became a lump of earth.


the living soul called adam dies.

Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Yes, that seems to be accurate at first glance.
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
What a stupid thing to say. I hate it when atheists do this, like everything is a scientific claim. Nothing matters except data that this vague Utopian force called science, who's methodology is infallible in so much as it prevents the possibility of error. And yes, I know you will all jump on this and deny it but where, I now ask you, is the source?

Then you'll say something stupid, like it's my claim. . . blah, blah, blah. . .

It's like you all live in a science fiction novel.

Source? He said it. Because he observes it. Open your ****ing eyes and think for yourself without science. You don't have to agree with him or research the data, robot, just open your eyes and address what he said. It's not a phenomenon.
You're reading into this more than necessary.
It's called sarcasm.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Then, I wonder if the question becomes can you look past them. Recognize your preconceived notions and possible unconscious bias.

Let's take the soul as a quick example. The atheist doesn't believe in the soul. Of course, they don't really know what it is, but in this test it doesn't matter.

The majority of Christians think the soul is immortal. Ezekiel 18:4.

So, testing the Bible on the subject of the soul, the Bible determines the soul is mortal. It dies. From there you would test what the soul is, according to the Bible and then . . . does it exist? Simple. Right?

Sort of...the Bible often doesn't present complete analysis on any of its topics or terms, but rather a list of rules and a wealth of stories. The main aim of the latter is to paint a picture of morality and how to be moral or how hard it is for us human's to achieve such. God's chosen are, sometimes, only barely more moral than the crowd and they struggle to meet God's desires.

What I find is that with some irony the Bible gives us more questions than answers and this is a good thing. It is teaching that God's creation and how we can be agents of morality in that creation is not something one can distill into a dictionary but rather something which requires our ever vigilant efforts at personal reflection and community discussion. Our stories create complex knots for our sense of justice to untangle and our desire for peace to puzzle out.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
That may not even matter. I don't want a theological debate here. I'm running ideas by an atheist who has a capacity for logical thought. I give, as briefly as I can, possibilities. The Jews said this. The Christians say this: The Bible says this: This is a possible theological influence: This is the etymology: These sources say this: Now - what do you think?






Yes, that seems to be accurate at first glance.
you're debating on belief with people who want verifiable experience. it matters
 
Top