An interesting pair of definitions.

@DangerDave

The last line was humor.

God is synonymous with human, homo sapian, people and person. The concept of calling ourselves god has been around for a lot longer than these other titles. Atheism illogical.

@Word Let me get this strait. What you're saying is 'We call ourselves god. We have done a long time. Therefore saying we don't believe in god makes no sense?'

Just want to confirm the basics of your comment before responding to it.

@ToakReon Yes, you should believe in yourself, you are a god, human, homo sapian, person, a people.

@Word OK - lets talk this though:

You should believe in yourself. Yes indeed - both literally, because there is plentiful substantive evidence of your existence, and figuratively, in other words 'believe in your worth'. Agreed in both senses.

You are a god. No. By all standard and normal definitions of the term 'god', we are not gods. We do not meet the criteria to be gods - so just saying 'I am a god' in the absense of such matching of criteria is as meaningless as saying 'I am an elephant' or 'I am a South American, three-toed sloth'. It is simply an untrue statement that can be shown as untrue.

You are a human, homo sapian, person, and (one example from) a people. Correct. Unlike the god statement above, these claims match the accepted definitions and can be shown to be true.

By the accepted definition of the concept of 'god' it is possible to formulate personal perceptions about that concept. One can formulate perceptions about whether the concept is believable or not (theist/atheist) and/or whether the concept is likely provable in either way (gnostic/agnostic). Therefore both the concept of atheism and the concept of agnostisism is a perfectly LOGICAL concept, even if its conclusions are disputed.

@ToakReon It has been written and documented for at least almost 2000 years from the laws for the nation of Israel.

The text is well copied having achieved Guinness's book of world record for being most copied text of it's kind.

People are, and have been (my self a former Christian) Christian for at least almost 2000 years because of Jesus character and what is written as to what he said.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law,(A) ‘I have said you are “gods”’

Us, "People" are accepted to be labeled as Gods.

Atheism illogical.

@ToakReon Please, tell me about your scare crow fallacy God definition.

@ToakReon are you telling me that a "true" god must be non-existent pasta in the sky with meatballs?

[spaghettimonster.org]

@ToakReon let us look out side of biblical text. Kit Carson and Daniel Boone are real people recognized as deity. And, the powerful people of the banking world.

@ToakReon Are we still talking this through? You know what a scarecrow fallacy is about don't you?

I would be curious to here your scarecrow definition for a God thingie.

I tend to lean atheist-agnostic. I'll never know. Once dead, I'm dead. If something occurs, who is to say it isn't just my mind not quite dead, or another unexplained phenomenon. If a superior being shows up, who can say they are a god, aside from themselves. Thus, there is no way to absolutely prove a god.

@Word OK, lets take your replies in order.

Reply one 'It has been written and documented...'

So your argument is that the fact text was written 2000 years ago means it is somehow more meaningful, truthful and real than modern text?

Interesting argument - text getting truer as time passes - but of course, complete rubbish.

It doesn't MATTER when the bible was written, or by whom, or how popular it is - its age gives it no more credibility than age would give to Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland'.

The bible is the fairytale of middle-eastern, bronze-age goat-herders in which snakes talk, men come back to life, seas part, and women turn into pillars of salt. No level of either popularity or age makes that fairytale any truer.

So when you quote John 10:34 that means nothing at all. Let me quote J R R Tolkien for you 'In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit'.

Guess what? That's not true either.

Reply two 'Please tell me about...'

Not MY definition, I'm afraid. The definition I've heard from the countless religious types that have attempted to convert me to their faith.

Yes, they vary a bit - but there are common factors.

• God is all-seeing. Are we all-seeing? No we're not, so we cannot be god.

• God is all-powerful. Are we all-powerful? No we're not, so we cannot be god.

• God is eternal. Are we eternal? No we're not, so we cannot be god.

And so on. It really isn't that difficult, is it?

Reply three 'Are you telling me that a "true" god...'

No. Next question?

Reply four. 'let us look outside of biblical text...'

Indeed let us. May I suggest you do so by looking up the meaning of the words 'simile' and 'metaphore'. Trying to claim that powerful people being called gods to indicate their power is a claim that they really are gods in the religious sense is absurd.

Reply five. 'Are we still talking this though?...'

Apparently we are, but so far you have said nothing of value - just quoted the bible, make absurd and unsubstantiated claims, and declared personal views as facts without any form of supporting evidence.

@ToakReon
#1. I have not said nor given indication "...Interesting argument - text getting truer as time passes - "

When we write text, or such as those written 2000ish years ago, they can be objectively looked at. We are objectively looking at text and determining what the text is objectively conveyed in its arraignment and message.

The true observation, aside from your statement of twisting words, intents and my thoughts, is that the text quoted gives for people to label themselves as God. So then we are the definition for what a God is. This is not to say that we call ourselves god and suddenly change into someone else's preconceived ideal of pasta in the sky with meatballs.

#2 . Reply two 'Please tell me about...'

Not MY definition, I'm afraid. The definition I've heard from the countless religious types that have attempted to convert me to their faith.

Obviously. I am not discussing "defination of...countless religious types " . You hold their definition as a scarecrow to my discussion of a difference of understanding as to what a God is.

So, you are accepting "...convert me to their faith." definition they give to oppose my discussion.

#3. Skipped

#4. "...a claim that they really are gods in the religious sense is absurd."

No, I am not saying gods any any particular religious sense. I am say we are gods in the labeling sense just as we have been labelled by some as homo sapian, we prior have been labelled as gods.

#5. You statement "...quoted the bible, make absurd and unsubstantiated claims, and declared personal views as facts without any form of supporting evidence. "

This statement would be property viewed a sin of ad hominem fallacy. It does nothing to address the topic of discussion and only attempts to make the speaker appear as discredited.

@Word

Point 1 - so what you're saying is anyone can call themselves god (which is true) by choosing to define the word 'god' themselves as whatever they want.

Which means their self definition has no meaning whatever.

Point 2 - and why not accept that definition, when it is the widespread one that is actually regularly used?

Is it not appropriate to use words as they are actually used, rather than to conveniently re-define them in order to try and support an otherwise unsupported statement. That's how language works.

Point 4 - we are back to point 2 above. If you choose to redefine the word 'god' to mean something different to the meaning it has in general use, then you can indeed claim any equivalence.

It is like choosing to re-define the word 'carrot' to mean, not what people normally assume 'carrot' to mean, but what they would refer to as a 'combine harvester'. By doing so the phrase 'I rode my carrot around the wheatfield in order to harvest the wheat' becomes valid - but it's validity is purely an artificial attempt to re-define language in order to make it match the point.

Point 5 - if your argument is nonsense, and I say your argument is nonsense, that is not an ad hominem fallacy - it is simply a statement of truth.

@ToakReon #1. Just as homo sapian is used to label and defined as being us, "god" is just as interchangeable.

#2. I am not doing anything "NEW" elohim has been in biblical text for so long as we have has biblical text.

I am not "redefining" anything.

The word is used for: the true God, false gods, supernatural spirits (angels), and human leaders (kings, judges, the messiah). [hebrew-streams.org]

Kings, judges and the people of the nation of Israel are labeled as elohim.

#5. I am not arguing. I am discussing. What I am discussing is not nonsense. It is your lack of understanding that is in error not the information I am having a discussion about.

@ToakReon wheither homo sapian, human or god.
I can speak of Michael Jordon, basketball God and refer to him as a God of basketball. Then to convey that I am a human, homo sapian or god is not to say I can fly thru the air and dunk a basketball like mike. Have you ever seen a fat God-human- homo sapian fly like mike? I don't think so.

@Word You are making statements. You are then re-defining language to try and back up those statements. The re-definition of language makes language itself meaningless, so instead of actually backing your argument what you are doing is playing games with words. Your 'discussion' amounts to 'I make a statement, and I expect that statement to be accepted - and anyone who calls me out, stating that my statement is invalid, is guilty of attacking me with ad hominim fallacy'.

I understand VERY well.

@ToakReon please feel free to properly and fully articulate this alleged "redefining " you say I am doing.

@ToakReon It appears to me, an observation I make from what I see with understanding.

Analogous observation:
You are like unto a Greek person from 2000 years ago. You have you language, you connotations and concepts for words in your language.

Hebrew. biblical, Israeli comes along and they have their simular but different language etc.

You then say, "NO" deity can only be used to label fictional characters portrayed as having some "homo sapian " likeness with abilities of hyperbole style attributes that our "homo sapian " cannot do.

So then, you reject the language, definition and usage of the other language that does not fit into your idealized conception of the words considered simular across the language divide: God, Elohim, Deity.

@ToakReon Further example of your "Greek" mindset.

Elohim in the style of Jesus character as purported by biblical text: is that. Lucifer the devil, most commonly known as Jesus the Christ is an elohim of the angelic- messenger style. The biblical writings explain that the Angelic hosts are created beings.

According to biblical theme, Jesus character was spoken into existence by the elohiem-people of the old testiment.

If you are ever trying to dispute Jesus style elohim, you cannot properly or logically use the Greek style deity.

It would be like, going to use Turtles to disprove that martians do not exist. And, have you been to Mars to certify that no microbial Martian organism exists that could possibly evolve into a larger more complex organism given the right conditions.

@Word And again we have more of the same.

Annoying, isn't it, when someone won't just give up and say 'you're right of course'.

Your redefining of language.

We are in 'agnostic.com'. We are in the 'religion and spirituality' section of that forum. We are discussing a post about the meaning of the term 'agnostic'. For that discussion to have any validity, meaning or any point whatever we need to accept the terms we use to mean what they are generally accepted to mean in the context of religion, spirituality and agnostisism - we need to accept, for example, that the term 'god' is what the vast majority of those discussing such matters would define it as. If we do not, then the discussion becomes utterly without basis or point.

Then along you come and say 'we are gods'.

By the established definition of the term god, which you would expect to be used in a discussion of religion, spirituality and agnostisism, we are not. The established and accepted definition of the word 'god' that we would expect to use in this forum and this discussion declares certain characteristics for the word 'god', and those characteristics are not the characteristics of human beings.

Therefore we are not gods. It really is very basic.

So you respond that 'god' doesn't mean what the established definition is, but instead means what you choose it to mean (THERE is your redefinition, by the way - very clear) so that by YOUR definition, we are gods. Yet if that is your approach it means nothing. It can be applied to any and every other noun. I could declare that the word 'cucumber' has some other meaning, so that we all become cucumbers. Or we could all become rabbits, or all become pebbles.

And when challenged on the validity of the nonsense argument you are trying to make, your response it to make accusation of personal attack. It is an 'ad hominim fallacy'. No it is not - I am attacking the validity of your claim, because your claim is invalid and nonsensical.

So then you try another approach, to obscure. You start introducing everything else you can think of to complicate the matter in the hope that your basic nonsense will disappear under a blanket of yet more nonsense - my 'greek' mindset, jesus style elohims - but sorry, not falling for that. The matter is simple. There is an established definition of the word 'god'. That definition has established characteristics. Those characteristics do not match the characteristics we possess - therefore we are not gods.

Now you can continue to redefine words, you can continue to try and obscure, you can continue to claim to be the victim of ad hominim fallacies, but ultimately that makes no difference.

You will continue to be invalid in your claim - and I will continue to tell you that you are.

@ToakReon I have clearify established one of the many accepted definitions for a God. Your accusation of me "redefining " is a blatant false accusation directly in view of the fact there is more than one accept definitions in current use and in modern text, in so much as dictionary and biblical text certified to be old text in modern use.

You then, purport that the only "legitimate " definition is the definition accepted by those people that have jumped on the bandwagon fallacy. You say only the "most popular " from your cultural peers is the only acceptable definition preaching your nonsense standing on the bandwagon fallacy.

You can continue to tell me I am invalid until you are blue in the face. That will not make you illogical statements true.

@ToakReon AND, I have yet to this point bring up the modern usage of the "Child of God" phrase the MODERN christianity refers to themselves as.

As a former Christian, I am fully aware of the modern usage by Christian's in the MODERN use of the phrase "I am a child of God".

This is to say, currently, in MODERN christianity today. A "Child of God" is saying. I am a God.

The argument is even the argument written about in the purported trial of Jesus character just prior to his alleged death sentence.

He was considered "guilty " of blasphemy, as written, because he declared himself "son of God" making himself equal to "God" being then to say he is a god.

@Word And more of the same.

@ToakReon yes atheism illogical. I really do exist.

@ToakReon An illogical God says, "I am atheist."

@ToakReon Discussion recap. Your strawman fallacy exposed. Your bandwagon fallacy debunked. Your ad hominem fallacy deflected. Your modern usage nonsense has got you caught up in correct time and now knowing current modern usage.

I like having discussions with my illogical atheist friends, it allows me examples of illogical atheist retorts to have when teaching logic.

Would you have any more illogical statements to add to this discussion? Think freely my illogical atheist friend. Think freely!!!!

@ToakReon Just to make sure we are on the same page. Nothing discussioned here prior has any thing to do with the existence or non-existence of the alleged invisible pasta in the sky with meatballs monster sky God.

To show athiesm wrong or illogical, it only takes one God.

Williy Wanka God, Harry Potter god, Zues, Thor, or name any other style of God, these have nothing to do with the fact we exist as gods, nor does our existence as gods mean or prove the existence of other styles of purported gods.

@Word

No - to prove atheism illogical it takes one god who is not FICTIONAL. Or metaphorical. Or invented.

Saying 'god exists' does not make god exist. Saying 'people are god' does not make god exist.

It's that simple.

edited to add

Your basic argument is that anything can be defined as a god if either you say it is, or (better still) you can find someone else who says it is - and this makes gods 'existent' and makes the concept of atheism illogical.

EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT could be that if I say the Loch Ness Monster is actually a goldfish, then because goldfish can be shown to exist anyone declaring the Loch Ness Monster non-existent is being illogical.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between those two arguments.

@ToakReon yes, your illogical statement being greek to butcher another language to require "god" fit into your greek deity .

Any more illogical statements?

@ToakReon Saying 'homo sapian exists' does not make homo sapian exist. Saying 'gods are human' does not make homo sapian exist.

@Word Explain how your 'humans are gods, humans exist, therefore gods exist, therefore to claim they do not is illogical' argument differs from my 'goldfish are Lock Ness Monsters, goldfish exist, therefore Lock Ness Monsters exist, therefore to claim they do not is illogical' analogy.

@ToakReon Gato in Spanish is cat. You cannot even make a logical analogy for the discussion.

I am not saying a dog is a cat.

I am saying a God is a human as a perro is a dog.

@Word You have not explained the difference between your argument and my analogy.

@ToakReon I am not arguing anything. It is a fact dog is perro, gato is cat, human is elohim. Nothing to argue. If you want to argue I can send a picture of a fence post and you can argue with the fence post all you want.

@Word And once again you have not explained the difference between your argument and my analogy.

Because there IS no difference.

@ToakReon your analogy does not fit "my" arguement. You are illogically equating my statements of fact as if I am arguing opinion.

@ToakReon Maybe I can explain to you this way. I state facts in a discussion. You are not educated on the facts. You want to argue and throw out illogical statements rather than have a discussion of facts.

@Word My analogy is EXACTLY like your argument - if it is not, EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE.

@ToakReon not that I should be required by any means to respond to such a demand.

Once up on a time someone decided to label those in their culture as what now translates as God in English. Some cultures were unaware or not understanding of this label at the time.

Some years later,(a few 1000 perhaps) someone decided to label those of their culture as human.

goldfish are Lock Ness Monsters, goldfish exist, therefore Lock Ness Monsters exist, therefore to claim they do not is illogical' analogy.

I am not familiar with the ancestry of the goldfish. I almost want to say Chinese or oriental origin. Perhaps, someone in Spain would call them pez dorado. Perhaps, someone in England wants to call them lock ness monsters.

@ToakReon As I have explained. You have a Greek deity bias and are uneducated on Hebrew elohim and "son of God" so you cannot understand with this greek deity bias as you have.

@Word You have STILL not explained why declaring people to be god is any more valid than declaring goldfish to be the Lock Ness Monster - all you're doing is playing your 'ancient script' card yet again.

@ToakReon No, I have explained. You do not seem to understand. For what translates into English as God is what was a label for what is now labeled as human, homo sapian, person, a people.

Your gold fish analogy is irrelevant nonsense as much to say when I say God, you think pasta in the sky with meatballs is a Greek deity given an Italian flavor. .

@Word And AGAIN you you play the 'ancient script' card.

The word 'god', as it is currently used in a religious context, has a very distinct meaning - even if that meaning is not fully agreed upon. That meaning includes aspects of 'godness' that render it inapplicable to human beings.

There is no validity for saying people are god, just as there is no validity in saying goldfish are Loch Ness Monsters - so conclusions you draw from the 'humans are god' statement are as invalid as the statement itself.

You're playing word games - trying to argue a nonsense, unused, invalid definition of god in order to support a nonsense, invalid conclusion.

Nothing you say is changing this, and the reason nothing you say changes this is because your argument is invalid.

@ToakReon it is modern use text, maybe ancient, but hold best selling record for modern times.

Ancient does not matter, it is current modern use now.

A survey by the Bible Society concluded that around 2.5 billion copies were printed between 1815 and 1975, but more recent estimates put the number at more than 5 billion. [guinnessworldrecords.com]

@ToakReon you say, "The word 'god', as it is currently used in a religious context,"

The modern most copied text of it's kind holds that the definition of religion is: Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

This definition of religion has been around for atheist almost 2000 years.

Why are you referring to anything else as "Religious " when talking in context of biblical text that defines religion as it does?

Why are you talking about "religious " activities being something other than helping widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption?

Why ?

@Word Back you go to 'ancient text', but this time adding 'popular text' - we're covered this, neither a text's age nore popularity make it true.

@Word You're quoting the bible again - once more the bronze-age fairytale is being quoted as if it means something.

It does not.

@ToakReon religion has been defined for 2000 years in most copied text of its MODERN time and YOU want to Redefine religion as giving sarcasm worship to the invisible Greek Italian flavored sky God by making fun of those Christian's that do not know Jesus is Lucifer the devil?

@ToakReon let me try one of your ad hominem attack fallacies: do you know the difference in shit and shinola?

@ToakReon you still have not demonstrated knowing the difference in shit and shinola.

@Word OK - Let's quote the BIBLE for a moment, shall we - seeing as that's what you enjoy.

The BIBLE says there is only one god - so if people are god, the bible itself declares the human population cannot be more than one. IS the population more than one? Just a bit (by 7 billion or so) so the BIBLE tells us that people cannot be god.

The BIBLE says that god created the heavens and the earth BEFORE creating people - so if people are god, people created the heavens and the earth before creating themselves. Once more the BIBLE tells us that people cannot be god.

The BIBLE tells us that god is perfect - so if people are god, then people are perfect. However the bible also says that people commit sin and fail. Again the BIBLE tells us that people cannot be god.

And so it goes on.

The reality, of course, is that the ONLY THING the bible can prove - and it does it over and over again, in countless ways - is its own absurdity.

For this reason it doesn't matter what the bible says. Its words are proven fiction - indeed proven by its own words and inconsistencies.

So when trying to discuss whether god may or may not exist, the very first thing to do is cast aside the bible and every word therein.

The second thing to do is define the concept of god - after all, if you have no definition for what god is, then the question of whether that god exists is meaningless. 'Does the undefined thing exist? Well - that depends on what that undefined thing actually is.'

So who do you go to in order to decide what god is? You go to the people that claim to know and understand god - his worshippers.

They may not agree on everything - but 'all-seeing', 'all-powerful', 'eternal' and so on are pretty universal foundations. Those characteristics are not shared by people either - so those 'people of faith' are also telling you that people are not god.

Walk up to a christian - ask him/her 'Are you, personally, god?'

I'm pretty sure what answer you'll get from most of them.

So sorry - I don't understand what you're trying to do here. It's as if you're fixated on 'winning your point' to the extent that you're willing to play ridiculous games to try and make the absurd sound plausible.

Back to shit and shinola - just lately I seem to have been reading a whole load of shit.

@ToakReon You must be fishing with more than one fishing pole. You have a lot of red herring there, must have caught it all with a net.

Let me start with your last statement. "Back to shit and shinola - just lately I seem to have been reading a whole load of shit."

That still does not answer my question. I will help you out a bit. Why have you "...been reading a whole load of shit."?

Why are you using this word aside from its original meaning? Why do words and concepts evolve and change?

Shit
Old English scitan, from Proto-Germanic skit- (source also of North Frisian skitj, Dutch schijten, German scheissen), from PIE root skei- "to cut, split." The notion is of "separation" from the body (compare Latin excrementum, from excernere "to separate," Old English scearn "dung, muck," from scieran "to cut, shear;" see sharn). It is thus a cousin to science and conscience.

@ToakReon Shit is fecal matter, poop, feces. The stuff that comes out of the anus considered bodily waste.

Why do you, (why is it now common usage to) call other things - shit?

Do you see poop on your screen, do you smell my text aroma like feces?

@ToakReon Shinola

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

@Word Excellent.

I make the fallacy of your argument clear and your response is not to respond to that, but to discuss the definition of the word 'shit'.

I think that makes the matter clear, does it not?

@ToakReon You point out no fallacy of mine. You are uneducated and do not know biblical text nor understand biblical language, You are "Greek" mindset butchering Hebrew/Jewish/Israeli language/concepts translated into English.

Your error in accusing me incorrectly and YOU making an incorrect statement to wit: "The BIBLE says there is only one god"

The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. “There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8); “For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4); “Our Lord is above all gods” [firstthings.com]

@Word

Sigh