Well said. I wonder why we have emotions. I can see fear as a way to fight or flight. But we have other emotions. I guess love if it is an emotion should be considered. Maybe hate? I hate emotion? I dunno. Surely anger is an emotion. I guess emotions developed through evolution, but5 it seems funny that humans have emotion. I think other mammals and creatures also have emotion.,

@Grecio you think? i dunno. Dogs do seem to be on our wavelength so to speak, dunno if that qualifies or not? Anyway imo Eve reps emotions, dunno for sure there either tho

@bbyrd009 I think there are many living creatures that have emotions. We really don't know exactly what emotions are, or why we have them. When we feel bad we often cry. When we are happy, we laugh and smile.
Isn't there a group of people that their smile is upside down?

@K9Kohle789 i think prolly bc animals are not as demonstrative, and even tend to hide stuff like that? dunno tho

@K9Kohle789 im not sure those can be counted as "emotions" per se, but then it seems that emotions are subjectively defined anyway? Many competing defs. Anyway the bear who saved the bird came to mind in reading your post,

Well said.

Well said, good point.

@Grecio Full disclosure: I suffer from a rare neurological condition that often causes my tongue to occupy my cheek. (OK: Not so rare.)

yet here you are?

@bbyrd009 when members ask, I always answer.

@Mofo1953 I guess, our life is a waste of time if there is not God.

@Grecio there are no gods. Your life probably is if you want it to be.

Well said.

Personally, I think Paul was the founder of Christianity, and he never even met Jesus.

Well said. Paul is the father of Christianity, and he never even met Jesus.

Well said.

Well said, good point. I wonder why we despise ourselves?

@Grecio This post I wrote may help: "Humankind has evolved to the point that they are conscious of their own mortality."/

@MissKathleen I should have written that there is no "soul" or "spirit" as defined by religion. The brain does form a soul or spirit, being the essence of ourselves, but it will not survive the death of our bodies.

@BestWithoutGods I think that's a fair definition of you want to use those words.

I have seen at least one solid instance of a dog trying to make her best friend show back up....made me burst into tears, I was mourning him too

"Trick" implies intention...

@JeffMurray a creation, an adaptation, an evolutionary artifact... What word do you suggest?

@Pedrohbds Byproduct? Consequence?

@JeffMurray yes, that will do

Lotta contradictory stuff in your "logic", care to explain?

You sound like the well known French philosopher Gobble de Gook

@AnneWimsey please point out what appears to be contradictory to you.

Horse Feathers

You're just redefining 'god' to a definition that makes it exist.
Thinking is God.
Thinking exists.
Therefore, god exists.

But valid logical form does not alone make a sound argument. Watch.

Jelly doughnuts are intergalactic space ships.
Jelly doughnuts exist.
Therefore, intergalactic space ships exist.

For the argument to be valid and sound the premises must also be true. To redefine thinking people as god is nonsensical, even to your own book. A few verses later we have, "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God" which has several problems.

"No one has ever seen god"
Thinking people see each other all the time.
Therefore, thinking people are not god.

@JeffMurray First, I am not arguing. Second, I am making observation that it is accepted that "logos is god" from John 1:1 ...the logos was with God and was God.

Your defination of god is not necessarily what I am discussing. Your defination of god may be "tootley, tootley infinity in every direction " I am not discussing your defination of a God thingie. Your defination of a God thingie may not exist.

@Word Yes. You are.

There is in fact evidence for gods.

This is a contradiction to the OP. You follow it with your "evidence". That is a debate/argument.

accepted that "logos is god" from John 1:1

Accepted by whom?? That's an interpretation of bronze-age beliefs supposedly written and/or inspired by a god that couldn't even do a better job of explaining the natural world than elementary school science.

Your defination of god is not necessarily what I am discussing.

What do you mean my definition? You are the one that is asserting that god exists based on a Bible verse. Even though a few verses later it contradicts itself. The point of the matter is that if you dilute the definition of a thing so much so that anything meets the requirements, you have essentially rendered the word useless. Let's say I start expanding the definition of the word 'food' to include anything that anything consumes for sustenance including sunlight and water. Then I continue to expand to include anything that can be broken down to make more of something (like rocks into sand) or converted into something else (like energy into heat). Then the sentence, "I need food" no longer conveys any concrete information. That is what the expansion of the definition of god in your comment has done. Not sure why you're having trouble understanding this...

@JeffMurray "This is a contradiction to the OP. You follow it with your "evidence". That is a debate/argument."

Obviously. the OP was not aware of my existance. I am not making a debate/arguement but rather stating information that the OP statement was not aware of or lacked knowledge of. There is nothing to argue.

@JeffMurray you said:
Accepted by whom?? That's an interpretation of bronze-age beliefs supposedly written and/or inspired by a god that couldn't even do a better job of explaining the natural world than elementary school science.

God defined as a word of open definition and usage, in that any person could give any usage or define it in any way, whether logical, provable, real, surreal or not. 

There are some things labeled by this word that have more popularity than others. There are groups of people that give a certain definition to this word that the agree on and follow for that group. There are those that would say there is nothing in existence that this word would properly label. 

There are those that do not have evidence for a reason to label anything with this word. There are those that could never know what to label with this word. 

A very uncommon word for how it is used comes from Germanic origin of meaning to call or invoke and now in fact exist as a word in English spelt with the letters G, O, and D. 

I created Taco God. Taco God is real. Taco God is a person. Any person that has eaten a taco is a Taco God. Tacos are real, people are real and people really eat tacos.

Taco God is not evidence for ANY OTHER GOD but it is in fact A God. And it only takes one God to give evidence that atheism is illogical by defination. Because atheism by defination says: no gods exist. Taco God is proven to exist.

Taco God is backed by peer reviewed text that has been peer reviewed for 1000s of years and the text is the most copied world record holding text of its kind. Taco God is real and really exist. Atheism Illogical.

I created Taco God. Taco God is a person. That person has eaten 1 taco in their life. Have you eaten a taco in you life? You then would be a Taco God. Millions and billions of taco gods exist because a lot of people has eated a taco. Taco God is everywhere, almost omnipresent even. Taco God knows almost everything, nearly omniscient.

@Word Of course there is. You are claiming there is evidence of god (actually, you are claiming that god exists) in contradiction to the OP, I am showing why your argument is not sound.

@JeffMurray I am a person. People are accepted to be gods. I exist. Are you arguing my existence?

@Word Again, you are diluting the definition to meaninglessness. I have decided to include in the definition of 'convicted pedophile rapist' anyone who creates gods that are related to Mexican food. Because I have done that, I can fairly call you a convicted pedophile rapist. Do you yet see the problem with arbitrarily changing the definitions of things to the point that the word becomes useless?

@Word Alternatively, I could just define 'god' as anything that contains no matter and cannot be detected in any way. Then, by its very definition, it is impossible that there could be any evidence of any god. The point you're missing is that when we redefine on a personal and individual level, it amounts to nothing more than personal opinion, and opinion is not evidence. You claimed:

There is in fact evidence for gods.

But your opinion, or even the opinions of millions or billions of people, is NOT evidence. When a majority of the world believed the Earth was flat, was that evidence of its flatness?

@JeffMurray You keep claiming and accusing me of: #1 "Again, you are diluting the definition to meaninglessness."
#2 "...when we redefine on a personal and individual level, it amounts to nothing more than personal opinion, and opinion is not evidence.

#1 problem I have is your lack of NOT stating what defination you are accusing me of "DILUTING " and" REDIFINING"

I am making observation from text that is historically verfied to be at least almost 2000 years old. I am not redefining anything and I make no dilution.

If you still think I am redefining and diluting, please specifically articulate this definition in writing, its origin and show how exactly I am so such as you accuse.

@Word So wait, so you're going on is that one verse from the Bible?! Okay, you have multiple problems here:

1. If your claim is that the Bible is evidence that god is real becomes circular reasoning when god being real becomes the evidence for the Bible being true.

2. The problem from John 1:18 that states, "No one has ever seen god". If people see each other, then they cannot be god(s). So people are not god as you have stated multiple times.

3. Your claim that you can just call something 'god' and that means the thing is a god. THIS is how you are diluting the definition of god. If you can call anything god, you can call everything god. If everything is god, the definition becomes so vague it is useless. (The same way that if I personally define convicted pedophile rapist to include people who create taco gods among a myriad of other things, no one will know what I'm talking about when I start telling them all of the people who I know are convicted pedophile rapists.)

4. A very uncommon word for how it is used comes from Germanic origin of meaning to call or invoke and now in fact exist as a word in English spelt with the letters G, O, and D.

I cannot find this definition anywhere. If this is needed to support your argument, can you please produce a source?

5. Your claim that:

Because atheism by defination says: no gods exist. Atheism Illogical.

That is not the definition of atheism. Atheism is a DISBELIEF or lack of BELIEF in god(s). Just because you incorrectly use the word 'god' to define something doesn't mean that your personal definition of god is proof (or even evidence) that god(s) exist.

@JeffMurray For your #1. If your claim is that the Bible is evidence ...

No, I am not claiming the biblical text is evidence of a God thingie, but like a dictionary it is a source that gives for a defination of a God thingie. Biblical text gives that people are gods and gods are people. You finding out that people really do exist is your evidence that people really are real.

For your #2. I would have to research further to get my own better understanding of what this author "John" might be speaking of. But, I will try to explain this much on a spur of moment thought: in video, it is explained that Adam from original hebrew can mean 2 different things depending on context. Then when translated into English some of that understanding is lost from original language. So then, what I would be saying is that "God" in those contexts may be like the word Adam that could be different depending on context. Another analogy might be like saying no one seen you when you were a zygote. In bronze age non-microscopic seeing capabilities, some one might know that there is something in a woman that is a person (in development formation) but they had never seen any person at the zygote stage and would consider it nonseeble.

For your #3. The word "God" now in English comes from germanic origins meaning "to call or invoke". Why would translators choose such a word in Germanic to give to something that could be used "to call" something? For you to research your self for your own understanding, consider god as/is spoken words. Such that ruach is force of breath translated into English as spirit.

For your #4. You said,"I cannot find this definition anywhere. " I was not specifically giving a defination other than statement of the origins of the English word "God" coming from germanic origins. See attached photo for more reference information on the word "God".

For your #5 " ...atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism.

[plato.stanford.edu]

@Word

1. Yes, you are. You have said that cognition is logos and logos is god based on biblical text.

2. It doesn't matter. If no one has ever seen GOD then whatever assumptions you have about being allowed to label random stuff "god" based on arbitrary things like them having eaten a taco, is, even according to the text you are using as evidence, incorrect. That is the problem of a definition that is too vague. But you don't get to have it both ways.
   And what do you mean you have to get a better understanding of what this "John" means? That's the Bible book and chapter YOU are using as your "evidence that god exists". Now you're going to play dumb when he says something that completely obliterates your point?

3/4. I believe you are misinterpreting the definition "to call or invoke". It doesn't mean "to label". Additionally, if you are arguing that the process of labeling something is god, that, again, dilutes the definition to meaninglessness.

5. You're not saying anything different than what I said. Thank you for agreeing.
   Proposition- a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
   So a proposition that there are no gods is another way to say a belief or opinion that there are no gods. The article from Stanford you linked plays the same word games. They claim in the beginning that it should not be defined in the context of a belief, then conclude that it is a proposition of no gods.
   By very virtue of asking a question for which there is no definitive answer, you are either seeking inquiry (for which the answer cannot be yes or no) or opinion (which can be stated as yes or no with an implied 'I believe' preceding it). Think about the question 'do aliens exist'. Since no proof or evidence exists (yet) any statement of yes or no necessarily includes an implied 'I believe'.
   Not sure why you're not getting this either.

@JeffMurray as I already said, me nor biblical text is about evidence of a God thingie. But what gives defination for the god thingie.

Read about Harry potter style God in a book and you would understand how it is defined. It is not evidence of its existance but let's you know what to look for as evidence.

@Word But that's not what you said at the start of this. You said:

There is in fact evidence for gods. As written and accepted, Gods are thinking people. Thinking people are gods. Evidence for some type of Gods obviously does in fact exist because people exist as gods.

So you did claim the Bible have evidence of a god. In fact, you said it was proof of it and called the claim of atheism illogical.

As written and accepted, Gods are thinking people. Thinking people are gods. Evidence for some type of Gods obviously does in fact exist because people exist as gods.
Taco God is real and really exist. Atheism Illogical.

It is not evidence of its existance but let's you know what to look for as evidence.

But there's a difference between evidence of a "Harry Potter style god" (whatever that means- I wasn't aware there were gods in Harry Potter) and evidence of a god from the Bible in that the evidence you claim is proof of the existence of good from the Bible is clear as day. Remember you said:

Thinking people are gods. Evidence for some type of Gods obviously does in fact exist because people exist as gods.

That's a claim both of evidence for and proof of a god. Why is this so difficult?

@JeffMurray Definition not evidence: Genesis 6:4 ...when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

What does it say the sons of God was? MEN of great renown. MEN that were popular. Gods are men.

John 10:34 ... "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

John is refering to the people of the nation of Israel. People are defined as Gods.

Your evidence is then finding that Gods exist because Men and/or people exist.

@JeffMurray A problem I see with what you think as you said " "Harry Potter style god" (whatever that means- I wasn't aware there were gods in Harry Potter) "

You have your thought of that a God must be. You have your definition of what you think a god must meet the definition of in order for it to be a "true" god.

This is your fallacy to think that you must control the definition of what a God must be in order for it to be a "true" god thingie.

@Word facepalm Keep defining words into meaninglessness you convicted pedophile rapist (you know, one who makes up gods related to Mexican food). You still haven't answered my objection to the verse later in John chapter one that is self-contradictory and continue to spout biblical nonsense as if that book of fairy tales means anything in regards to how we define words, let alone whether it is evidence of anything. ( hint: it's not )

@JeffMurray Typical illogical atheist rant. If you want to carry on a discuss, then carry on a competent conversation. Otherwise, I have addressed your question about the apparent contradiction in John yet you want to demand more. Then, you spout things that you cannot back up and I am not even going to request that you even attempt to validate your statements such as: "book of fairy tales means anything in regards to how we define words, ".

If we went on a premise that the biblical text was authored by only one person in it's entirety, that person would be a genius. On the other hand, it can be shown that it was authored by several people over a period of time. Still a work of genius

@Word
No, you did not answer my objection to a John chapter 1.

And genius(es)? Are you kidding me?! That book can't even avoid simple contradictions. I'm good on arguing with a Bible thumper; I joined this website to avoid them because they are so dense. I think you are on the wrong website, bro.

@JeffMurray no, not on wrong website. I am something of an agnostic towards the existence of the flying spaghetti monster sky God.

@JeffMurray let us address your contradictory issue scientifically.

I just picked this random article to begin with. What I suggest is that you do some research along the topic of "psychology of eye witness accounts contradictions".

Then consider these points:

#1. Biblical text is purported to be a lot of different eye witness accounts. Old/new testiment, testiment as in a testimony from witnesses.

#2. Genius for a single author to make the eye witness accounts appear to be scientifically correct and have contradictions according to scientific psychology. And this was written almost 2000 years ago.

#3. If the biblical text were written as if perfect with out contradictions then it would be apparent that it was entirely fabricated. But if it is entirely fabricated it would require something of a genius to make the contradictions to coincide with what would be scientifically acceptable for contradictions.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate

[scientificamerican.com]

I

@Word Of course, you realize that the Bible is a false document.

@Grecio please feel free to elaborate on the falseness of the biblical text

@JeffMurray did you get a chance to further research the psychology of eye witness testimony??

I's a little worried them there God damn bible thumpers got you tied up into one of those illogical debates

@Word I know all about eye witness testimony and how unreliable it is. That doesn't change the fact that you can't seem to understand why the Bible is not reliable evidence.

@JeffMurray no, you don't understand, as unreliable as eye witness testimony can be, it is nonetheless a form of evidence AND a form of giving definition for a God thingie.

I would guess you do not know or understand the biblical text well enough but, are you aware how the the biblical text explains or gives definition for Jesus style God as being Angelic lord of host Lucifer the devil?

If you understand that, you would then know how to moreso properly debate Christians that are unaware of this as well.

Huh? So you would rather die than have as much fun and experience as you can while alive? Seems a bit like a temper-tantrum. "Oh . . . I don't get Ice Cream? Then I will never eat again!!!!"

@Observer-Effect Jeezus...you ARE a trouble-maker, aren't you?

@AmyTheBruce

Life is not something you want, it is just something that happens to you. And like everything else, you just try to make the best job of it you can, and yes if you are sensible then like any tool you lay it aside when you are done without a thought. No problem if you are not indoctriated into a culture with an enhanced fear of death, like theist, and post theist cultures.

I don't understand your question. Your profile says you're an atheist, but it sure seems like you believe in heaven. What am I missing?

I do not believe in a hereafter and that makes everyday precious, I am not dreading punishment or expecting rewards after death, therefore my actions are based on their effect on the here and now.
Why do I want to live, for the love I give and receive from those who are important to me and to hopefully leave a better word for those who come after.
Living for a hereafter is an utterly selfish way of existing

@Observer-Effect Life is so short compared with the age of the universe. True, any life is better than no life, I guess. If we were dead for zillions of years, and after we die then we will be dead for another zillion of years, then there is no purpose in living. We can enjoy the sweet time we are here if we live in a nice country, but why would anyone want to be alive in Syria?
Do we need a purpose in order to enjoy life, or find it meaningful?

@Grecio Do "we"? We as in the collective sense, humanity? I don't know, my ego only allows me to answer for myself. I don't really think I do. But of course the definition of "purpose" in this context is pretty tricky.

Words are a bitch that way!

@Fernapple Well said