"OK, I’ll try to take it in smaller bites."

Much appreciated.

"Theories about the origin of natural processes are a priori."

Seems another regression to the first cause to me. There are no Scientific Theories that cover the cause of the big bang, or the natural processes that come to be as a result of it, so it would appear that you are wrong.

"Atheists seem to have tow choices: natural processes always existed, or they originatied by themselves."

No, actually, that is a false dichotomy. Natural processes did not always exist, nor do we claim to know how the big bang originated. I don't know is an acceptable answer to such a question, and does not impede ones ability to make observations and deductions about the things that do exist, not in the least.

"Either way, it is an a priori assumption."

What is? I don't know?

"Is the origin theory of atheists falsifiable?"

Considering the fact that atheism does not include an 'origins theory' this question is malformed. It is on par with "did you stop beating your wife?"

"Is the verification principle of falsifiability falsifiable?"

Huh? Why would it need to be? Falsification is a SCIENTIFIC and PHILOSOPHICAL principle, not an atheist one. However, an even more insightful question would be:

Is an empirically verifiable belief more accurate and likely to be true than one that isn't?

"Yes, Popper said, “that’s the stupidest question I ever heard of”. Defensive, wasn’t he? But I will revisit the verification issue at the bottom of my response."

Whatever. I will refrain from quoting other Christians and assuming that you agree.

"Your view/critique of the Bible:"

This should be good...

"The meaning of the word spirit, from Latin, is breath. So spiritual beings are beings that breath. The Hebrew word for spirit is ruach which means breath. So when the Bible speaks of a spiritual being they mean a being that breaths."

Then anything that respires is 'spiritual'? So trees and aerobic bacteria are spiritual?

"After the Greek language was introduced to the Hebrews and they wrote in Greek they chose the word pneuma as a translation of ruach or spirit. You may recognize word pneuma if you ever studied pneumatics in physics."

Indeed, the physics of gases, and some fluids, under pressure.

"According to the Book of Genesis when human life began they acquired ruach, or pneuma, or spirt or breath."

This statement is strange. It makes it sound as if you believe that humans existed without breathing.

"One of your assumptions is that “spirit” means something different that what the author of Genesis had in mind."

That would seem to be the main interpretation of theologians, do you deny it? Do you deny that most theological ideas of 'soul' or 'spirit' is a bit more than respiration?

"Every time I see a living being I see a spiritual being. That is the same thing as saying every time I see a living being I see a breathing being."

Not all living things breathe. Anaerobic bacteria and tardigrades do not breathe, for instance.

"Ruach, pneuma, or spirit, or breath according to Genesis was given to plants and animals. The ancient Hebrews saw thems selves, although more intelligent, essentially the same as animals. In other words, spirit (breathing) was applied to anything that was living."

Okay, a bit of a stretch considering what the spirit is supposed to do, but I suppose one could buy it if they reject all of the supernatural elements injected into it.

"It was their way of distinguishing the inanimate from the animate."

Not entirely. Fire respires, it breathes, and they did seem to consider it to be an almost living thing.

"I see evidence of breathing beings on earth. Can you accept that?"

Yep.

"OK, I see evidence of spiritual beings. Can you accept that? If you can’t you don’t know what the word spirit means."

Argument from not simply definition, but original definition. Definitions change, usage changes, under the current colloquial usage of the word spirit I would not accept it. It appears, if fact, you wouldn't either.

"You see something wrong with it because you see thw word “spirit” and the Bible” through the lens of a flawed metaphysics. Your metaphysics, revealed in the definition of philosophical naturalism, defines “spirit” in a way that the Bible did not."

No, I see it how it is used by mainstream theology and most of the people using it, and see something wrong with it. It is really strange you would make such an argument. I am not the one that created the modern definition of spirit, that would be religion and philosophers, not I. If you have a problem with the way the word is used here in modernity, then you should take it up with the people who started using it that way, not the people responding to it.

"My first introduction to the theory of evolution was through the lens of christian critics of evolution."

I'm....sorry?

"My (Christian) professors always insisted to read the primary source, otherwise my methods are flawed."

Not the best method in science. The primary, or original sources, is often the least refined and least supported versions of a Theory. That is like saying that all you need to do physics is Newtonian equations.

"When you critique the Bible are you sure you know what it is you critique?"

The bible is pretty well known, I doubt anyone doesn't know what it is.

"It is a flawed method to try to understand something only from the perspective of critics."

What is wrong with approaching anything with a critical perspective? Do you understand the Null Hypothesis?

"The Bible is mostly literature."

A great many people in your camp would completely disagree with you.

"Would you critique Spielberg’s movie ET as it it were a science documentary on extra terrestrial life visiting earth?"

If I had people insisting that it was a science documentary on extraterrestrial aliens visiting earth? Yes.

"His movie is a story. The Bible is mostly stories and poetry, with a dash of history, and some letters, and some symbolic writing. Since the Bible is mostly literature, it is a flawed method to treat it as if it were a rational science book."

You are telling this to the wrong people. We are specifically countering people who DO believe that it is inerrant and infallible. If you want us to not criticize the book as if people literally believe it, then make it to where nobody literally believes it.

"In order to prove that spirit doesn’t exist you use a meaning of spirit that couldn’t possible be true, and then attribute that to the Bible."

Seems to me that there are a lot of places in the bible it talks about the spirit as more than merely breath.

"Apparently you only read things that confirm what you already believe."

That's strange, considering you seem to read more atheist books than I do. I have never even read a book by Richard Dawkins.

"If you can’t accept the idea that you might be mistaken about something, then you are not going to look for facts that might contradict your preconceived ideas."

Nice, accusing me of setting up an echo chamber despite the fact that I am in the only part of the forum that the opposition is welcome to post. Imagine that.

"You are in the grip of confirmation bias, and you don’t know it."

P R O V E I T. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed with the same.

"The definition of philosophical naturalism defines spirit in a way that is false."

Not according to you. You define it as a natural bodily function, how is that the least bit counter to naturalism?

"But you uncritically accept that definition and read it into the Bible."

I criticize that definition a lot, actually. I am merely reacting to people that use it in a certain way, and claim that they are using the biblical definition. As someone who doesn't really CARE about the bible, I don't feel the need to investigate and correct them, as it is their book.

"Then you criticize the Bible. Where is the reason in that? Where is the empirical in that?"

Oh, yes, because that is the ONLY reason we criticize the bible, right?

"Your meaning of the word spirit is the same as that of Fundamentalist Christians."

Those are the people I generally find myself dealing with, so that is the definition I assume people mean when they use the word.

"But they are wrong."

Then, perhaps, you should be trying to correct the people perpetuating that definition, instead of a person merely reacting to it.

"They don’t even know their own Bible, and neither do you."

Two words. Holy fucking spirit. If spirit is nothing but breath, then the holy spirit is nothing but hot air.

"When you criticize your idea of spirit, your argument is with fundamentalist Christians, not me."

You got that precisely backwards. When you criticize the modern definition and idea of spirit, your argument is with most religious people, not me.

"You already know they are unreliable on maters of science, so why would you trust them on matters of their own Bible?"

I don't need to 'trust' them. It doesn't matter. Even if they are completely wrong about the bible, like some people read stupid shit into Harry Potter, it is not my job to correct their misconceptions about it.

"You claim to be critical and skeptical, yet you trust them."

It isn't about trust.

"And speaking of false lenses, you mentioned the ancient belief of a flat earth. Ancient people who believed in a flat earth, and the sun went across the sky were empirical. They said it the way they saw it. It was plain as day, the sun went across the sky, and the earth was flat. But obviously, empirical fact, which they relied on, can be proven wrong when the horizons open up, and one is willing to shift their Gestalt."

Actually, there have been empiricists since ancient Greece, so was heliocentrism, but most of the common people did not know or understand it.

You know what, all you are talking about is the bible, and how it isn't true literally. That it is simply esoteric poetry and literature meant to be taken other than literally. If that is the case, we have no fight, I think it is full of crap too.