denial is a refusal or unwillingness to accept something or to accept reality.

The definition is from something I copied from "your dictionary" source.

Does that help clarify the paragraph?

@Word Not really. Let me get this straight. You are saying here is a word(denial) and here is a reference to a dictionary. Do you have a point beyond that?

I know what you mean. It is just so absurd that a person has to do so much in modern time to explain things to illogical atheist.

@Word No, fool. What is absurd is your childish attachment to and willingness to argue for your meaningless thesis, which is that it is "well-accepted" (evidence for this comes from a lot of old books) that people are gods, and that therefore to deny that god exists is to deny that people exist. It is a formulation that explains nothing, elucidates nothing, does not provide any insight into anything. It is as pointless as a tic-tac-toe tournament.

@editor20 it is a shame you have such legal education and cannot even speak in a conversation without committing the sin of ad hominem fallacy. You should be ashamed and to think with your legal education you would not purport such illogical statements. Forshane my "highly" illogical atheist friend. You need to learn to think freely and in truth. Good day.

STILL not a reference book.

@KKGator anything written can be referenced. You don't seem to know the definition of reference.

I could use my grandmother's 50 year old written recipe book to give reference for something I am making discussion about.

@KKGator do you understand? Or can I elaborate?

I can reference my grandmother's 50 year old recipe book saying "this is the definition for a tuna casserole ". You or anyone else could reference some other written source and say "nope, this is the "real" recipe for tuna casserole.

There could be the argument as to which recipe is "real", yet both could possibly be whipped up and eaten.

Now, if a recipe calls for things that don't exist then it would be a problem whipping up that recipe.

But taking biblical definition of a style of god, we can see evidence that people really do exist.

You say, "An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of a creator typically referred to as a god or gods."

Parents are creators, they create children. People create children, people are creators. Gods are creators, people are gods.

@Word I say lots of things. What are you saying? You've got words that form sentences, but are you trying to make some point?

@bragadm @Joanne @kkgator Many illogical atheist are in denial of the following definition and the fact of the definition. The following exist as a well established definition and by observation ir can be well observed that the label, definition and thing so labelled exist as defined.

Notice picture. Daniel Boone and Kit Carson are examples of deity. They are real people. It is not in a source such as biblical text. Secular reference.

Biblically, "Gods" are men. Men of great renown [this mean popular].

2 different translations:

Genesis 6:4 ...when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:4 ...for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

Later in biblical text it is recognized in the laws of the nation of Israel that people are gods. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'? John 10:34

Peer reviewed for 2000 +/- years, this definition is well accepted and biblical text also holds Guinness book of world records for most copied text of its kind. [guinnessworldrecords.com]

Very well established definition that "Gods" are people, [as opposed to something like a golden statue or pasta in the sky with meatballs], and well established that people are gods.

@Word That's an awful lot of justification, but it still falls short.

The bible is not a reference book. It's a work of fiction. It has plagiarized and cannibalized every ancient text that came before it.
It has been rewritten and translated thousands of times.
Often to support whatever agendas were being pursued by whomever was financing
the rewrite or translation.

I don't accept "answers" that it, or any "holy" book, asserts.
Every "definition" contained therein are wholly subjective and suspect.

That is also not denial. It is reason. Something your "argument" lacks.

@KKGator I make no argument, my information lacks nothing. You statement(s) is/are incorrect and no point in attempting to show correction myself. There is nothing to argue about. If you care to argue please feel free to find a fence post and argue with it.

If you feel you can justify your incorrect statement such as "The bible is not a reference book. It's a work of fiction." You will find in research for yourself that it is infact an illogical statement and I need nothing from you being in denial.

@Word You seem to be saying atheism is illogical because it's a lack of belief in a god or gods, but people are gods and people exist therefore atheism is actually a lack of belief in the existence of people and as such atheism is an illogical position.

Have I stated your point correctly?

@bragadm
Theism - existence of god(s) is held to be true.
The opposite:
Atheism - existence of god(s) is held to be false.

One given definition for a God as I have explained is: If "something" is going to be a god, it would be a person. This is to establish that a God is not for example: a gold statue worshipped nor pasta in the sky with meatballs.

@Word I see you referred to the book of Genesis. Is there a specific version of the bible you're using? I think this is from NAS.
Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Is this something you believe to be true?

@bragadm This video is the best explination I have come across about the garden of Eden myth. I like most of it, watched it several times and only a couple things I might have issue with. Genius of a story and explanation when you understand it from the original language.

@Word The Rabbi has an interesting interpretation.

I'm curious about what you take from this and other sources of ideas you've studied. Have you formed a belief or are you still in the process of figuring out what you believe?

@bragadm belief means to hold something (information) as true.

I can hold information as it is purported to me. If while holding the information I find it one way or the other it might change the hand I hold the information in.

Otherwise,

@bragadm my turn about a curiosity I have about a comment you make in your profile. You reference a statement that is often refered to about the illogical atheist/agnostic Jim Jones killing off 900 people. "...too many friends and family who drink the koolaid." Is you friends and family being lead by another Jim Jones style illogical atheist?

@Word

It is well accepted that people are gods. People exist, gods exist. If you choose to not accept this fact you would be in denial.

@Word It is well accepted by whom that people are gods? If procreation is a sign of being a god, then anything that procreates is a god. People create gods in their image, we are not gods--not by any official definition of a what a god is.

Might work

I don't know what kind of evidence could be presented to me that would cause me to accept that a creator god, of some sort, exists.

Science shows us that there is no need to insert a god (especially an all- knowing, all-powerful god with personal will/volition) in order to explain the universe, so why insert one? Occam's Razor.

Now, when it comes to specific gods, I think we can demand evidence that they exist as people want to use them to dictate how others live their lives. And, so far, no verifiable evidence has been presented to convince me that any of these gods exist.

@Joanne Excellent presentation of the facts..

God is not my name. I exist, how much more credibility of evidence do you need?

@Word Whatever you might call yourself, you are NOT the creator of the universe. And, using verses out of the bible to back up your argument means nothing. It is a book of ancient writings written by ancient men--nothing more.

@Joanne I am not claiming creator of the universe. As I would see it the "universe" was never created, it has always been some how or the other. But, for me I could say I have a beginning. In the beginning was the word ... the beginning for me.

@Joanne ...the word become flesh. John 1:14.

I am a person in the flesh, I really exist.

@Word

• I am not doubting your existence.
• I do not believe you are a god. I am an atheist. I don't believe in any gods.
• Bible quotes mean NOTHING to me. If I quote Simon and Garfunkel and say "I am a rock, I am an island" that does not make me a rock, nor an island.

@Joanne Aren't metaphors fabulous?

@Joanne I do not believe you are an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of atheist. You do not exist. Right?

No, I am not in denial. You exist, you are labeled as an atheist. I can accept the fact you label yourself as an atheist. Thus, since you exist, your label is atheist, I accept atheist exist.

My name is Bob, could be a lie too. I am a rock could be true If i were petrified.

Where your belief does not change fact: I say: I am labeling this dirt surrounded by water. I am going to call this dirt an island.

You say 2 points. do not believe you are a god. I am an atheist. I don't believe in any gods.
Bible quotes mean NOTHING to me. If I quote Simon and Garfunkel and say "I am a rock, I am an island" that does not make me a rock, nor an island.

Being labelled as a rock/island and being labelled as a human/god are different in definition.

@Joanne to label a person as a God is no different than labeling a person as a homo sapian.

To say "I do not believe in the existence of homo sapiens " is saying the same thing as saying " I do not believe in the existence of gods."

You "lack of belief" does not change fact.

Atheism illogical.

@Word

To say that atheism is illogical based on your arguments is simply nonsensical.

What I and other atheists are saying is that we do not believe in a being, of any kind, that is responsible for creating the universe, who holds it in place, or holds any moral authority over it; or that has dictated its will to humans via holy books or any other kind of revelation.

Call yourself a god, a chair, a leprechaun--whatever.

You are tiresome. I shall no longer respond to your posts.

@Joanne a God for your definition may NOT exist. That doesn't change the fact a style of God exist.

It is well accepted that people are gods. People are not imaginary. You then would not have knowledge if this fact as it is well accepted that people are gods. Otherwise, you would be in denial of this fact.

@Word "Well accepted" by whom? Humans are not gods. Never have been, never will be.
That word gets thrown around a lot, but it's just hyperbole. It's an adjective.
It is not a "fact". Facts have evidence to prove them, not just general acceptance based on nothing but ideology.
There is still no denial, for it is not a fact.

You are in denial perhaps?

@Word No denial here. I just expect evidence to prove your assertions.
No different than my atheism.
Want me to change my mind? Show me credible and verifiable evidence.
Otherwise, your assertion has no basis in reality.
Perhaps it is you who is in denial.
You're making an assertion without evidence, and you're accusing me of denial because I refuse to accept your assertion.

@KKGator definition versus evidence. First you must understand the definition. Definition is NOT per say the evidence. You then need to know definition to analyze ANY evidence to see if it corresponds with the definition. If evidence does not correspond with the definition then it is not evidence of the definition.

@Word Oh. So now you're basing facts on your own definition of what certain words actually mean.

Philosophy is really nothing more than some people's opinions.
It has no requirement of being rooted in fact.

I stand by my original reply to your post, and each subsequent response.

My atheism is far more logical than your unfounded opinions.

@SeaGreenEyez I'm in California, denial is in Egypt.

Belief means accept as true. When given information it is a choice to believe or not . When you reject as false, you have a belief, you believe it false, It is not about me or any giving you a belief

@Word What i am talking about is that I have no dogma to follow. Nothing in a book written down that I believe and follow. Now you think having no belief is having one. Wrong. You are talking about opinion. Each of us has an opinion.

@DenoPenno do you hold your opinion as true? If you hold something as true, you have a belief.

@Word Only in your world. In mine I have an opinion. This is word salad. People may believe their opinion but this has nothing to do with it being true or not. There are so many beliefs that i doubt they could ever be counted.

Please feel to elaborate and do so avoiding edging into the sin of ad hominem fallacy with such as "...except in your short sighted mind."

But by definition let us evaluate the terminology "illogical nonbelievers ".

Illogical- lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.

Nonbeliever - a person who does not believe in something,

Illogical nonbeliever - a person who does not believe in something, lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.

You said, "There are no illogical nonbelievers"

Are you saying every person believes in something AND has a clear sense or sound reasoning?

Or, can I ask: Is it possible that someone some where does not believe in anything and is in fact lacking sense and sound reasoning?

@Word i do not believe in sins. My statement was very clear and I stand by it. You can ask, obviously, because the question is right there isnt it? I'm sick and tired, of people who label themselves as whatever they want to label themselves, thinking that they are somehow better than those who are absolutely sure of their lack of belief. Pathetic. That is your answer. No, it is not possible for someone who does not believe in gods or religions to lack logic. Your idiotic comparison of not believing in gods and religions to "not believing in anything" is a ridiculous attempt to demean non believers in bullshit like gods, spirits and religions. These people by definition believe in logic, in science, in evidence, which proves that your shortsighted bias is real and definitely not a fallacy, much less a "sin."

@Mofo1953 First, I am not saying people are illogical in matters of science, math, whatever, whatever etc. etc. I am saying atheist are illogical in their atheism because atheism by definition and premise is illogical.

"Mofo1953", for all I know, is a rocket science genius when it comes to rocket science and knows everything about turn every bolt in the logical direction while constructing a spaceship to blast off to the moon.

If you choose to wear the "hat", "label" of atheism, basically that is your choice. I understand you maybe doing your logical rocket science while wearing the illogical hat of atheism. That does not make your rocket science illogical.

As to "sin" moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense.

an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offense, or omission.
"he committed the unforgivable sin of refusing to give interviews"

Origin
Old English synn (noun), syngian (verb); probably related to Latin sons, sont- ‘guilty’.

Sin and fallacy are synonymous terms. If you have done a fallacy you are guilty of being illogical. Guilty as sin.

@Mofo1953 1+1=3. I just wrote an illogical statement. It most likely could be said that the statement is more of a sin than to write the God damn word "shit".

@Mofo1953 but I must ask, why do you keep trying in helping widows and orphans in need while avoiding worldly corruption? What does that have to do with God thingies?

@Word where should I begin? you keep using fallacy statements and false deinitions or second irrelevant definitions to prove your idiotic stance. I don't need to be a rocket science you halfwit, anyone with a mildly functioning brain can refute your idiocy. To your second imbecilic comment, yes that is illogical, how does that demonstrate your "sin" crap is better than anything? False equivalencies galore. Finally, you are so deluded that you make assumptions without even knowing an iota of who I am. Helping others has nothing to do with the god thingy you moron, it has to do with humanity, helping others in need and decency, that you obviously lack and do not even comprehend. Piss off.

@Mofo1953 an example of a helping decency? Your statement: Helping others has nothing to do with the god thingy you moron, it has to do with humanity, helping others in need and decency, that you obviously lack and do not even comprehend. Piss off.

You say its that "helping others" is done this way? You seem to make indications that I am in need of a lot of help because I am so deluded so your statements are per8fallacy free examples of how to help someone? Because you really care to properly and logically help deluted people, right? That is the humanitarian thing to do.

@Word i seem? Wow, amazing. I am helping you by making you understand exactly what you are.

Imply that he does not exist where the woman wants him to exist.

@Word could you rephrase and clarify you intent as I do not undsratand.

@DavidLaDeau The source as cited from comment above gives the example that you further comment on. The source said "An example of someone who is in denial is a wife who cannot cope with and won't admit that her husband has left her."

For the over all discussion, it seems a moot point to address the example from the source for any analogy or discussion about the point of the primary topic.

However as you have gone into and brought up the sources example to say, "The difference is the Husband is infered here to exist."

The source's example is not trying to say the husband does not exist nor he disappeared from existance. The source is saying that the woman is in denial because the husband is NOT where SHE wants him to exist. She then is in denial saying he is still her husband when in fact he has left as existing as her husband.

@Word okay, good we are on the same page. The anology does not work as the husband (god) does not exist. So the more proper analagy is that a woman denies that her husband (god)has left her when in fact she was never married.

Read the comments already posted in this duscussion it may answer your question. But to specifically say I am agnostic of sorts would be in regards to a Harry Potter style God or a Willy Wonka style God, or many other of the 5000 + purported god thingies.

@Word
So your saying you have knowledge of a god existing? Do you believe in any gods?

@xenoview God is not my name, I really do exist. I believe in myself.

@Word
Either you have knowledge or don't, that any gods exist? Do you believe in any gods?

@xenoview you do not seem to understand OR you have not read the other comments in this discussion. It is well accepted that people are gods. I am a person. I am a style of god. I do in fact exist. NO, I am not putting myself as the definition held by illogical atheist to be pasta in the sky with meatballs. When I say I am a style of god I am not saying I am pasta in the sky with meatballs.

@xenoview you ask, "Either you have knowledge or don't, that any gods exist?" Yes, I know, I have knowledge, it is well accepted that people are gods.

This is in fact accepted as a style or definition for a God. It does not, and is not intended to support all definitions of purported gods.

This does or is NOT to ad or remove anything from any other purported style or definition of a God other than inherent contradictions between the definitions themselves. The different definitions might could have contradictions that would keep the difference definitions from existence at the same time.

It only requires one existing definition of a God to show atheism wrong or illogical by definition and premise because atheism is opposed to ANY and ALL styles to exist. One style god does not evidence all styles, but one style proves atheism illogical.

@xenoview I can understand that before our conversations you lacked knowledge or to say you did NOT know about one style of God existing. Take for example: basketball deity Michael Jordan as a God of basketball. He really exist and is a God.

If you have understood what I have said can you logically, by the totality of the definitions of atheist/agnostic , can you now still logically label yourself as atheist and/or agnostic?

@Word
Like I have said, I believe in zero gods. How are humans gods? Do you have supernatural powers? What do you mean a style of god?

@xenoview there is a label, there is a definition for the label. There is a thing that is labeled and they all logically exist. Cognition is a supernatural thing that people have.

@Word
Give me objective evidence that cognition is supernatural.

@xenoview cognition is thinking. Push buttons by thinking and replying to this message.

super-
/ˈso͞opər/
combining form
prefix: super-
above; over; beyond.
"superlunary"
to a great or extreme degree.
"superabundant"
extra large of its kind.
"supercontinent"
having greater influence, capacity, etc. than another of its kind.
"superbike"
of a higher kind (especially in names of classificatory divisions).
"superfamily"

Thinking is, requires a superior state as opposed to just the atoms and compounds. Thinking give for control over the atoms and mass associated with the cognition.

What is a mass of atoms and/or compounds with out cognition?

@Word
You have failed to give objective evidence that thought is supernatural. I still don't believe you are a god. Even if you could prove you are a god, doesn't mean I would worship you. Just means I would no longer be an atheist to you.

@xenoview Wheiither a God or not, supernatural does not matter and I am not asking you to worship me. I am not asking for hate from you either, but not asking worship.

Maybe your definition of a God thingie is supernatural pasta in the sky with meatballs that demands worship. That would be between you and the mightty noodlness if there be such a thing.

@Word
I believe in zero gods.

@xenoview I believe in chevy trucks, sometimes.

Here, if I read correctly, "Atheism" by definition and premise is the same as making a claim.

[plato.stanford.edu]

@Fred_Snerd I have given proof in writing that it is well accepted that gods are people [not pasta in the sky with meatballs] and that people are gods.

You are in denial of the definition actually existing as a definition because it goes against your beliefs that a god thingie can only be defined as pasta in the sky with meatballs that is not in the shape and form of a person.

You are saying, if I understand, that a god thingie cannot be in the form and shape of a person. What form, shape and definition do you say a God thingie is required to abide by and is limited to being?

@Word I use a dictionary for definitions. It’s the logical thing to reference.

@Mvtt As a starting point it could be a logical place to start. Modern dictionary is not going to give you definition that is always all inclusive. In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. Wikipedia

When one person uses a word it may not be the "STEREOTYPICAL " modern dictionary definition. Other sources can be used as means of establishing definition.

When using stereotypes or generalizing it can cause errors in the conversation.

Weasel word type fallacy can occur when definitions are not specific for a given conversation.

@Word and the weasel word for the day is: “claim”