rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 2:15 pm
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
That is my current understanding on atheism, but I do not understand an atheist perspective on existence itself and personhood.
And, EXACTLY like a so-called "atheist" does NOT understand a so-called "theist's" perspective on 'existence', itself, and so-called 'personhood'. But 'this' is just BECAUSE the BELIEF/S of BOTH the "atheist" AND the "theist" IS STOPPING and PREVENTING "each of you" FROM SEEING and UNDERSTANDING "each other", AND what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, AS WELL.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
Perhaps such a perspective could be one in which life being a pure illusion of random chance, and perhaps some atheists believe it could pop out of existence entirely at any point just as casually as it popped in? I would go on but I don't want to go too far off topic as atheistic world views are an expansive topic.
But, "theist's" views, to you, ARE NOT, right?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
I suppose the three main perspectives on rebirth would be an atheistic (as specific non-existence of God) view, a pantheistic view, and a monotheistic view.
Of which ALL of 'these' ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT IRREFUTABLY True AND Right. So, continually LOOKING AT ANY of 'them' is just ANOTHER WASTE of 'one's time AND energy'.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
God is the person at the root universe of our world (Earth and it's great beyond) that spawned this one as the intelligent designer.
Here we have ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'God', Itself, IS A 'person'. Talk about some 'thing' that is OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NOT True, NOT Right, AND NOT Correct.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
I don't know enough about God to define God exactly.
WELL I suggest 'you' DO, BEFORE 'you' make ANY CLAIMS, especially like the one that you just did.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
Its a problem leading me to hesitate to use the word at times, but it conveys enough meaning that I do anyways.
Talk about a PRIME example of 'TRYING TO' "justify" one's OWN Wrong and Incorrect behaving.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
A soul is an extension of a person on a deeper/higher or hidden dimension.
So, to 'you', "rootseeker", a 'soul' is an extension of even 'the person' God, Itself, and the 'soul' is even on A 'deeper', 'higher', or 'hidden dimension' than God, Itself.
Could 'you' be CONFUSED or Wrong in ANY way here?
Would you be SURPRISED if I INFORMED 'you' that 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
A soul is an encapsulation of a person, most often expected to be capable of surviving after death, with information being added based on the life of the person being encapsulated. So this would be an entity that holds information about a person's life or lives such as personal memories, and external judgments regarding the person.
Is 'this' REALLY what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, TO 'you'?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
A soul enables rebirth as the information of a person as their "essence" is transferred to an encapsulated unit, and that information is then used as the basis to form another person. In some eastern philosophy, there is a root personality that develops using the lessons learned from the previous life, and those lessons carry on as the soul makes decisions about subsequent lives. In some western philosophy, the soul renders a new instance of the person in another realm and is then metaphorically speaking crystallized into full being, possibly including experience of eternal joy, or being destroyed in a "lake of fire".
Although there might be TINY or MINUSCULE FRAGMENTS of 'truth' in 'this' here, more or less ALL of 'this' is just TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
A soul is the only method I'm aware of in which one person can live multiple lives, though I believe pantheists may have additional ideas.
I had NOT heard before that a 'soul' IS a 'method'.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
I do recognize the paradoxical definitions you are pointing out in that in a sense it is not the same person. One could define a soul to be an organization of multiple different people sharing a common essential connective part, or one person as the soul itself having multiple personalities.
And, absolutely ANY one could define the word 'soul' in absolutely countless OTHER ways, as well AND also.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:35 pm
My current intuition is to consider it as one soul having multiple personalities, or in other words as one soul being a root person that can be reborn to a new body.
However, and CONTRADICTORY, 'you' ALSO consider or BELIEVE a 'soul' to be an EXTENSION of a 'person', and thus NOT a 'root person'.
Atheists can learn the theistic perspective of existence and vice versa. Its just a matter of taking the time to explore the topics. Both theistic and atheistic views are expansive.
NOT REALLY. One BELIEVES God EXIST, while the other DOES NOT, and 'that' IS about 'it', in a nutshell as some might say.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Topics connected to spirituality and God are low-information domain topics.
ONLY IF you are MAKING 'them' to be.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Just because there are topics of low information that are not based in irrefutable truth doesn't make them a waste of time at all.
But ALL 'topics' can be based IN or ON IRREFUTABLE Truth.
WHY would ANY one ASSUME otherwise?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Doctors make health recommendations about cancer treatment without irrefutable truth of the future outcome.
So what?
And IS 'this' AN IRREFUTABLE Truth?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Lawyers make decisions to take a case even on little to no information let alone an irrefutable truth.
AGAIN, SO WHAT?
'This' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in regards to what WAS being talked about and discussed.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Business people make investments based on extremely loose estimations without having irrefutable truth.
LOL so-called "business people" make investments that 'money' is some sort of NEEDED 'thing', in Life.
MANY upon MANY human beings MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. But, SO WHAT?
What IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True CAN BE KNOWN, in regards to MANY, MANY 'things', which 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, ASSUME and PRESUME can NOT BE KNOWN.
BUT, AGAIN, SO WHAT?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
You have claimed that God isn't a person. What is God then?
In the visible sense: The Universe, Itself.
In the invisible sense: The Mind, Itself.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Do I need to know everything there to know about every topic I make claims about, as absolute irrefutable truth,
If you WANT TO CLAIM that you KNOW some 'thing', then it would be POLITE, and RIGHT, to ACTUALLY KNOW what you ARE CLAIMING. Because if you do NOT, then you do NOT KNOW, and you are ONLY PRESUMING or just GUESSING.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
and if not, what topics does this standard apply to?
But if you WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, then the ANSWER IS 'Yes'. So what you SAID and WROTE here IS MOOT.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
All low-domain topics,
What ARE so-called 'low-domain topics'?
What ARE so-called 'high-domain topics'? And,
What ARE so-called 'middle-, or medium-, domain topics'?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
just those that are spiritually connected, or some other set?
NONE. Because MY ANSWER WAS, 'Yes'.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
Its good to have the absolute irrefutable truth about a topic, but until then I am happy with an educated guess, if that is all I can get.
LOL WHY did you USE the 'can' word here?
you SPEAK and WRITE as though you ALREADY BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW that you 'can' ONLY get so much knowledge, or so much information.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
I'm not trying to suggest any personal definition of soul.
GREAT. Because the 'personal definition' of the word 'soul' that you WERE USING BEFORE was in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION of what you had PREVIOUSLY SAID and CLAIMED.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
I'm summarizing the features of a soul as I have heard the term used by others over the experience of my life.
But did you REALLY NOT NOTICE the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION that you WERE PRESENTING above here?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
A dictionary isn't supposed to tell the readers what they want a word to mean or what a word means to them, it is supposed to convey the meaning(s) of the word as used.
Okay. But is this YOUR OWN 'personal view, or definition' OF 'a dictionary'?
And, what IS the DIFFERENCE between, 'How a word IS USED', and, 'What a word MEANS'?
Surely, 'How a word IS USED would have to ALIGN WITH what that word MEANS, correct?'
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
A soul is the encapsulation a person in a way that they may exist in another dimension, or a dimension hidden to humans.
BUT when one KNOWS, FOR SURE, what a 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, then 'your' CLAIM ABOUT being 'hidden' TO 'you', human beings, goes RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW as some might say, right?
Also, SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' is the 'encapsulation of a person', IN A WAY that they may exist in another dimension, IS about AS USELESS as SAYING or CLAIMING that a 'soul' COULD be REFERRING TO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. Which is about more or less EXACTLY what you ARE SAYING and CLAIMING here.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
An analog of a soul is a video game avatar. The human body acts as the soul, while the avatar acts as an extension of the soul, as a person in another dimension, as the video game dimension. If the avatar dies within the video game, the soul remains alive to be reborn in a new life such as by restarting the game.
Are you AWARE that what ACTUALLY happens WITHIN human created GAMES IS DIFFERENT FROM what ACTUALLY HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF 'those GAMES'?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
The soul is the root person when it has the ability to survive death of a connected body.
But 'the soul' IS NOT some so-called 'root person'. What the ACTUAL 'person' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root person'. Just like what the ACTUAL 'soul' IS, EXACTLY, is the so-called 'root soul'.
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
I was using the term "extension" differently than you are interpreting.
HOW am 'I', SUPPOSEDLY, INTERPRETING HOW 'you' ARE USING the term 'extension'? And, HOW, EXACTLY, ARE 'you' USING the term 'extension'?
rootseeker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:12 am
A person is an extension of a soul, but by your implied definition of "extension" a soul is not an extension of a person. As with almost all definitions I've ever written, this definition is a summary as an approximation the uses of the word "soul" I have come across. I don't claim any absolute irrefutable truth regarding any human soul.
So, WHY do you NOT JUST HOLD OFF GUESSING or PRESUMING UNTIL you DO ACTUALLY LEARN and KNOW what IS the ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth here, regarding the 'soul', among MANY OTHER 'things'?