Posts by Twitch

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Twitch

Those are great questions that we can discuss. If you are interested, start a thread and I will join in. Not related to this thread, though.

Well, it is related to this thread. You asked what spirit is.

spir·it

: the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power

: the inner quality or nature of a person

: a person

My answer, as well as a few others posted, are relevant to the question, as commonly defined by Merriam-Webster at least.

Is any person defined only as a body and substance that is measurable or is there something immaterial that makes them "who" they are?

Full Definition of SPIRIT

1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms

2 : a supernatural being or essence: as a capitalized : holy spirit b : soul 2a c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically : ghost 2 d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being

3 : temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated <in high spirits>

4 : the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person

5 a : the activating or essential principle influencing a person <acted in a spirit of helpfulness> b : an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind : mood

6 a : a special attitude or frame of mind <the money-makingspirit was for a time driven back — J. A. Froude> b : the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something <undertaken in a spirit of fun>

7 : a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person's actions

8 : a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature

9 : a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness <denied the charge with spirit>

10 a : distillate 1: as (1) : the liquid containing ethanol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash —often used in plural (2) : any of various volatile liquids obtained by distillation or cracking (as of petroleum, shale, or wood) —often used in plural b : a usually volatile organic solvent (as an alcohol, ester, or hydrocarbon)

11 a : prevailing tone or tendency <spirit of the age> b : general intent or real meaning <spirit of the law>

12 : an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance <spirit of camphor>

13 : enthusiastic loyalty <school spirit>

14 capitalizedChristian Science:god 1b

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

Your question seems very specific in terms of definition, where only #2 and #14 seem relevant. Of course, these are by nature, subjective and open to interpretation and belief. Good luck with getting any answers that are satisfactory from a scientific perspective. Of course, none will be.

Which makes this thread less than genuine and sincere if you have no interest in answers given to such an philisophical question.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Twitch

I've always preferred honey over vinegar myself...

84

One thing about this site that bothers me

by keyser soze in

jw
friends

the constant references to 'window washers' as something derogatory.. i understand the context of it-that most jws are uneducated, and unqualified to do much more.

but sometimes the references seem snobbish, almost mean-spirited.

one poster, on another thread, essentially referred to window washers as 'losers'.

Twitch

Good points

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Twitch

Going on first thoughts re the op

Were one to ask the same questions regarding character or personality, would one have answers?

63

What are your turn offs in a guy or girl?

by Iamallcool in

jw
friends

one of them is nose rings/piercings.

.

Twitch

Turn off: women who like to be contentious for it's own sake

108

If God is real?

by suavojr in

jw
friends

if after you die you find yourself in front a god ready to judge you.

what will you say in your defense for not believing?

.

Twitch

Gee, aren't you lucky that prophecy is coming true in your lifetime? You must be someone special to be in the right religion at the right time, eh?

Sucks to have been anyone else in the last 2000 years or non christian, lol

219

An important difference between atheists and true believers

by Hortensia in

true believers, whether christian, muslim or whatever, want to convert you, they want you to believe what they do, and they're willing to go to extremes to make it happen.

atheists don't really care what you believe, and don't go out of their way to convert someone.. http://ow.ly/vn1jz an example of what believers in power do to suppress any difference in thought.

http://ow.ly/vraeo an example of why believers want to suppress different ideas (because they can't win in a fair fight, that's why).

Twitch

Well, the forum will always be changing and there will always be provocateurs, here and elsewhere.

I don't think having a strong opinion is bossing someone around. One can always "change the channel", choose to disengage, agree to disagree, let it go. Do people on TV boss you around? People only have power over you if you let them have it.

AGuest was a character that's for sure. I laugh to myself when I think of some of the "debates" I had with her. The guy who praised Jebus in McDonalds because he fed a homeless guy who was barred from the restaurant really stands out. The Lord didn't reach down and hand the guy a BigMac FFS. And here I am arguing with a crazy person on the interwebs about it. Who gives a shit? LMAO

Like many things, what you see is often a reflection of yourself in some way and it's always easy to see what you don't like.

True believers, whether christian, muslim or whatever, want to convert you, they want you to believe what they do, and they're willing to go to extremes to make it happen. Atheists don't really care what you believe, and don't go out of their way to convert someone.

Well, not sure if I agree with that; some believers aren't out to convert you; somebody has to be the infidel, the opposition, that which props up their beliefs, someone to judge themselves in comparison to. The psychologist I saw years ago (may he RIP) observed that the JW belief works as long as there's a "world" to see themselves as no part of. It would never work without a bogeyman. And the more popular a belief gets, the more likely it would have a schism and fragment. People have their own ideas and we are still tribal to a large extent; human nature. But by and large, most religious people aren't out to convert you, unless they're evangelical, by definition. Of all the people you meet in day to day life, most are religious and of these, how many try to convert you?

As for atheists not caring what you believe, I think by and large that's true but most people don't care what you believe anyways so why differentiate?

That being said, there are atheists who try to convert people to their way of thinking, but these are a minority IMO

108

If God is real?

by suavojr in

jw
friends

if after you die you find yourself in front a god ready to judge you.

what will you say in your defense for not believing?

.

Twitch

If after you die you find yourself in front a God ready to judge you. What will you say in your defense for not believing?

Which god would I be in front of exactly?

224

Atheists, here is a 'balls' question ---even for all---

by prologos in

it is very difficult to knock a ball into a hole (like golf), throw it into a receiver's hands (american football) intercept it and knock it over the fence (american cricket).

or to put a sattelite at the right time at the right speed in the right direction in the right place to have it orbit another body, so :.

what ingenious natural & process is it, than can get 9+ zillions bodies to get into the right orbit simultaniously or sequentially and have them remain there for billions of years?

Twitch

Well, why not?

twitch: sorry, it carries my name adress and full credits, as do the follow-up write-ups in other publications. . but

all you doubters: rest assured that, even if terms are sometimes cryptic, as they have to be given this format, no lie can be construed from them.

How could a lie be construed? You've nothing of any substance, and to tell a lie, one must first know the truth.

Not surprising that you refuse to provide proof of your claims once again. It stands to reason that if one claims to have published works, one would provide references. There are a number of authors here who have no issue providing reference to their published work here. What's your excuse? Can you provide any evidence of your supposed credentials?

There is nothing wrong with this format. Plenty of things have been written that represent actual facts. Sorry to hear you are having troubles writing your ideas down.

Clearly you wish to remain anonymous yet claim authority on a subject, obliging the reader to accept "I have credentials but can't tell you these so you'll just have to trust me on it". Seriously?

Also, why the need for anonymity anyways? Apparently you are wealthy and your supposed offspring will be well taken care of. You have a beautiful wife, obviously half your age. No concerns or ties to the jw world that seems apparent from your post history. What are you afraid of really?

There are all kinds of personal stories written about here, and I feel no shame if it somehow gets across what my limitations are.

Apparently not, since it seems to be a reoccuring crutch and a thinly disguised ploy for sympathy when pleading a case against reason and evidence. These limitations have no relevance to whether your ideas and arguments have any validity.

re: the star trails. I am not the lens-grinding, mirror-polishing astronomy type, not taking pictures. It took me a while to understand by referring to the location HOW such a picture of PARTIAL circles around Polaris or the southern polar REGION can be made. I had to work this through, and realized that even our vacation home is in the northern Hemisphere, although polaris only a few degrees above the horizon, only a small circular star trail possible there, and pointing south, the southern trail would be only partial. I certainly understood the principals but it was good to learn that about PICTURES. south-america did not sound in the least NORTHERN to me.

As I said, it's rather surprising that this fundamental concept was unknown to you. I hesitate to ask if you know what ecliptic or sidereal means. I'm by no means an expert and don't polish any mirrors; in fact, I've never owned a telescope but this isn't a prerequsite to understanding the basic concepts of astronomy, which you clearly don't.

What would the folks at the astronomical society think had these photos and this discussion happened at the supposed meeting? How much credence would your theoretical astrophysics have then?

of course some of the ideas I advanced on here are hypothetical, good! if it rings alarm bells.

Oh, it does, rest assured. But not the way you intend most likely.

other ways of looking at things I mentioned, like

The TIDES, GALAXY SPIRAL ARMS as standing waves, standing density waves, to prove it, I had my son back it up up with links, cut&paste somewhere. These are kernels of truth with delicious meat around them.

Puhleeze with the tides thing. As for the galactic density wave HYPOTHESIS, the article leaned towards NOT providing positive results in favour of. Clearly, you are mistaken would be a nice way of putting it.

And wtf about kernels, truth and meat? You're slipping into wizard mode again.

Any DIRECT comments on totally wrong ideas, or corrections will be welcome by ALL learners. even the geriatic ones.

Direct comments have been made and your own links do not support your ideas as more than inconclusive hypothesis. I trust something has been learned by someone, not neccessarily yourself. And you played the geriatric card btw, if you recall.

discovering Ball analogies all the time. like ROULETTE?

Whatever. Things that spin and a god that throws rigged dice tickles your fancy. Got it.

re: my communication skills: I am sorry, but I am stuck,

I am writing with an accent. and while I am at it, venting:

You can't type a name, an article, book or review? Playing the second language card is no excuse.

You like to be poetic and mix it with science. Music of the spheres, harmonious interactions, grand design, etc. Not science.

Vent away but you're deluded if you expect it to be taken as fact.

so to the authors of the "Liar", "Moron" type contributions, :

with age/proven survival skills, my great,- or smal family, my recognized work, these things do not faze me. I do not rely on such ones' approval to bolster my ego.

Age is irrelevant with respect to the topics.

Your family is irrelevant with respect to the topics

You have no recognized work.

And this ain't about approval or your ego; it's about facts as generally accepted by experts in the field, of which you are clearly not one.

In fact, I think you are completely full of shit.

224

Atheists, here is a 'balls' question ---even for all---

by prologos in

it is very difficult to knock a ball into a hole (like golf), throw it into a receiver's hands (american football) intercept it and knock it over the fence (american cricket).

or to put a sattelite at the right time at the right speed in the right direction in the right place to have it orbit another body, so :.

what ingenious natural & process is it, than can get 9+ zillions bodies to get into the right orbit simultaniously or sequentially and have them remain there for billions of years?

Twitch

next question,please?

How does one put any value into your "insights" when they are based on unproven hypothesis, speculation and poor communication/use of terms? Especially coming from someone who didn't understand the movement of the earth with respect to the stars and had to have the concept explained, one that is the most basic in astronomy. That you consider yourself suitable to "educate" people in astrophysics is laughable.

Also, using your status as a geriatric father as an excuse for anything is lame and irrelevant with regard to these topics, if it is even true which I doubt.

Lastly, you had mentioned being published in Popular Science. I'd be interested in reading the article, if you'd be so kind as to provide the title, year and volume. (I would be in awe of your editor btw)

Please provide something credible so that you're not regarded as a lunatic, a liar or both