the word 'soul' does not mean what so many think it to mean.
Of course, it means whatever the speaker or writer says it means when he uses the word. I only use the word metaphorically, as in soul of the city, or a soulful performance.
It's not hard to imagine where this concept comes from. Let's look at your link on the meaning of the word. Soul: "the traditional rendering of the Hebrew word
neʹphesh and the Greek word
psy·kheʹ. In examining the way these terms are used in the Bible, it becomes evident that they basically refer to (1) people, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or an animal has." It's simple subtraction : living body minus dead body equals soul. When a living thing dies, something exits it which gave it consciousness, desire, intent, etc.. This is harmless enough, and it gives people the sense that mind survives death.
Unfortunately, the priests hijacked the concept and used it to manipulate people by telling them that what exits the body is still the individual, is still conscious, is unable to become unconscious, and is still able to perceive pleasure and pain forever. Then, Pascal's Wager, at least implicitly understood by anybody hearing about this arrangement. You become a hostage of this mythology.
They will never find an answer unless...they recognize a supreme force enervating the universe
FYI, that word doesn't mean what you think it does. In fact, it means the opposite. Enervate - "cause (someone) to feel drained of energy or vitality; weaken." I think you meant energizing.
I've assembled a list of words that sound like they mean the opposite of what they actually do mean (yes,
@mikkel_the_dane , I understand that "sounds like" is subjective). Who would have thought that a redoubtable, pulchritudinous, toothsome, snoutfair woman would be desirable, but a licentious, meretricious, cupidinous quean not?
OPPOSITE SOUNDING WORDS
Enervate - sap
Puissant - powerful
Quean - lewd woman
Pulchritude – beauty
Redoubtable - evoking respect
Restive - restless
Spendthrift – wasteful person
Matriculate – enter
Licentious - unrestrained by law or general morality
Toothsome - sexually alluring
Ingenuous – sincere
Firmament – the heavens
Inflammable - burnable
Meretritious – prostitute-like, vulgar, tawdry
Cupidity - greed
Prosaic - dull, unimaginative
Nonplussed – in a state of utter perplexity.
Caliginous – dark, dim, obscure
Absquatulate – flee, abscond
Snoutfair - good looking
I would say he's profoundly agnostic.
Since I'm in a definition mood (your doing), some nouns don't take modifiers like profoundly, or extremely, or very. Consider extremely mediocre, very lukewarm, and even very unique. Some use the word unique not to mean one-of-a-kind, but different, like a unique outlook, which can take a adjective like very.
Based on the logic of benefit
Except that you don't see that it is logical to reject theism for its detriment to a life.
Any atheist could do the same. They would just have to give us some idea of what atheism's functional value, is. Several here have done so.
Did you reject their claim? I made that claim, and gave strong evidence to back it up, namely that I left theism for atheism, preferred it, and have remained atheist since. Yet here you are STILL arguing that such a choice was illogical. Of course, you don't understand what atheism means when others use the term no matter how many times you are told. If you are still unaware that there are advantages to choosing atheism over theism, then this is not for you to understand. It can't be stated any more plainly and simply than it has been, All one can do is repeat answers that are never understood.
The problem is that you want to insist that atheism is "I don't believe you" when "I don't believe you" is just skeptism.
You have no say in how others use words. None of us do. Your job is to try to understand what is being told to you. I've already explained to you with communication in contract bridge, how two partners can define the meaning of a 1NT call differently and still communicate effectively if each defines what it means when he makes the bid, and the other assimilates that.
Atheists have told you repeatedly why they use the definitions of atheism and agnosticism that they do, and if you would open your eyes, you would see that benefit. The concepts map onto the set of logical possibilities for theists and atheists, and can be used to describe the things that people say about having or god belief or not, and whether they claim knowledge bout gods or not. As a result, can all agree about what is what and communicate effectively.
But you steadfastly convert the word atheist when you read it to strong or gnostic atheists. Furthermore, you reject out of hand when an atheist tells you he also an agnostic, because the way you've mapped all of this in your mind doesn't allow for that possibility. That's a poor way to try to communicate, as this entire thread demonstrates. You've learned nothing from the atheists who took the trouble to answer you, and they've learned nothing from your message (logos), just your meta-message (ethos).
If I claim that by using the word "red" I really mean any color with red in it, like orange, pink, and purple, then the word red isn't going to mean anything, anymore.
That's wrong. Once I know that that is what red means to you, then if you use the word, even though I might use it differently, I know what you mean. If you tell me that your car is red, I know it's on this palette somewhere:
And when I use the word, you know that I only mean the color in the center. There is no reason to fight over how to use words. There is no need to agree, just as bridge partners don't need to agree about what 1NT means when they bid it if they explain themselves to one another, and choose to cooperate at the bridge table. Just define what you mean, and hope that you are conversing with somebody intelligent and flexible enough to have a conversation with you despite using words differently.
If I say atheism means "I don't believe gods exist" but also means "I don't know if gods exist or not" and also means "I believe no gods exist" and also means I can choose to have faith in the existence of gods even though I don't know if they exist or not, then the word "atheism" really doesn't mean anything, anymore.
That sounds like a good argument not to define atheism that way, and probably why nobody does. Is that what you hear when we call ourselves atheists. Previously, you heard what we call gnostic atheist. Now you hear us at once saying that we both believe no gods exist, and we don't know if they exist or not. Your definitions are incoherent. They contradict themselves.
