Talk:God

FYI: reminder on avoiding edit warring

In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

God: monotheistic or simply judaic?

The term God seems to be exclusively used by religions stemming from judaism. Why does the article broadly refer to 'monotheism' when the term seems to be used very specifically by a certain group of religions? For instance, the egyptians had a monotheistic religion around Ra. The word God was not invented yet and i have never heared Ra being referenced as God. On the other hand, all religions with judaic roots these days refer to their god as God. So why not explain in the article that this word, in its capitalized form, is intimately related to a certain group of related religions? It's like saying Shiva is a name for deities in polytheistic religions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk • contribs)

No, the word "God" (upper case G) was originally a title for Odin, and was first used to refer to the transcendent deity in Germanic (Gothic in particular) Christian Bibles. It has since become standard in English for transcendent deities of different religions, such as Brahman in Hinduism, Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, Olodumare in Yoruba religion, Ngai among a number of Kenyan groups, the Tai Di in Chinese religions (be it Taoism's Yu Di or Confucianism's Shang Di), and Tengri in Mongolian shamanism. It's possible to find sources that just refer to those beings as "God in X (religion/culture/language)." The worshipers of the previously mentioned figures will usually just say "God" in common discourse in reference to them when speaking English, and most missionaries for Christianity and Islam accept that (barring some screw up by their religions at least a long ago), converts from those cultures are probably going to continue to use a native term for the Abrahamic God instead of the English word -- which is how we got the word "God" in the first place.

The idea of a transcendent deity isn't unique to Judaism. Most religions include it at some point, even ones that try to be non-theistic.

Atenism is probably the monotheistic religion you're thinking, since before (and after, and really during) Atenism, most Egyptians were polytheists. Ra was, according to most temples throughout history, the supreme God in the Egyptian pantheon, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can tell you for certain from experience that Hindus will tell you that 'God' is simply the Western name for Brahman, or perhaps Vishnu -- it is important to remember that the various 'gods' of Hinduism are regarded as simply aspects of a single true God. And indeed Hindus will tell you even that Jesus and Yahweh and Allah are simply additional aspects of this same God as it has chosen to reveal itself to people of those cultures, all subsumed within Brahman. Even Deism and Pandeism and Pantheism, which reject any notion of intentional intervention by their respective theological loci, may yet call these loci 'God.' DeistCosmos (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The response actually supports the original criticism. The original article is biased in favor of the contemporary Abrahamic faiths, and portrays a very simplistic view and one that is incorrect. Any basic research will quickly reveal that the Hebrews were originally polytheistic, worshipping more than one god and inclusive of feminine deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.71.86 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The response indicates that you did not read the arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Purported?

The word, "purported", in "In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism.", has context. Purported means "claimed, especially within the context of a falsity." Wikipedia is meant to be wholly unbiased in its' descriptions and I think we should replace "purported" with a less suggestive word, such as "believed". 70.36.132.121 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, atheism and agnosticism are not "beliefs", they are various degrees of absence of belief. I agree the wording at present is rather odd, but I'm not sure that any of this even belongs at this point in the article. The article is written from a theist perspective (for which there is a very long tradition), so I think this list (from polytheism to atheism) would be better placed in Existence of God for example. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this argued before. There are plenty of atheists out there who actively proclaim the non-existence of God. That looks like a positive assertion of a negative belief. Agnosticism I'm much more ready to accept as an absence of belief. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, there are many such people, and the distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic" is not in practice very clear cut. But in any case, it is not clear that any of this belongs in this article -- and generally speaking I think this first paragraph is terrible. If you look at Conservapedia:God, the first sentence is a vastly better explanation, if preceded by "In the tradition of the Abrahamic religions" (which is the context of CP). Since the article starts by saying it is discussing God in the context of monotheism, all the other varieties belong under "Deity" or "Existence of God". Imaginatorium (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course the problem with Conservapedia is that it adopts a position, while Wikipedia tries to be unbiased. In tricky articles like this where the Abrahamic bias of most Wikipedia editors has become intertwined with the word. This causes problems as it would be weird to leave out multiple gods (e.g. the Olympian or Hindu gods) altogether, let alone other monotheistics gods who are not Abrahamic (e.g. Aten). Conservepedia has the easy option here as they go from the position that there is only one true God, the Abrahamic deity. But even if you accept that their introduction heavily emphasizes divine omnipotence and omnipresence in ways that liberal Abrahamic religions and philosophies would not support [1]. Arnoutf (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not speaking from religious context. I simply think the wording should be changed to sturdiness, rather than leaning on one side or another. It's not a preposterously biased sentence, but it could offend some. The article also has several other problems which have been talked about on this page. Something simple, such as "Athiesm is a lack of belief in God, where as Agnosticism leans on neither one side nor the other." Something like that. I wouldn't write that verbatim being that I'm only fifteen, but nonetheless "purported" is a strange word to use.

70.36.132.121 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC) ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.132.121 (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is pretty good

Very well done! 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

God is love, you have a whole article on God and it doesn't mention the most prevalent attribute

Hi there,

Look this is the most agreed upon attribute of God, whatever religion you are talking about.

People define God as Love.

You could easily link this to an article on love.

Sorry if you think I am condemning you or judging you or something.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"Most agreed upon attributes" can only be added to this articles if there are reliable (secondary) sources that report on the agreement. So if you think this needs to be added, please provide such sources. Arnoutf (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"God is love"

"[God is] the Loving One"

"Eros is the Greek God of love"

Here wikipedia shows a long list of gods of love in various mythologies

"Saint Tirumoolar in his magnum opus Tirumadiram encapsulates this truth when he declares “Anbe Sivam” (Love is the Supreme God)." Hindu faith

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/god-s-love Plenty of random quotes there “Here's the paradox. We can fully embrace God's love only when we recognize how completely unworthy of it we are.”

“As God has renounced himself out of love, so we, out of love, should renounce God; for if we do not sacrifice God to love, we sacrifice love to God, and in spite of the predicate of love, we have the God – the evil being – of religious fanaticism.” Atheist identifying God as love even in the context of atheism

These preliminary links identify God as love in two major world religions, greek mythology, a hindu text, fiction and atheism. As you know Buddhism remains neutral on all things and is about the closest thing you get to any religion saying "God is not love" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant (talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Holy books are not secondary sources, and can not be used without making clear these are primary sources.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

The referred to newspaper (the Hindu) quotes a lecture, but does not conclude this itself.

The goodread quotes are about the love of God, not equating God=love.

Ann Tatlock's book is a novel not a reliable source and not intended as such, labelled fiction(!)

Feurerbach's position is probably very outdated, and seems not to be that influential in todays discussion.

Please provide more explicit, more relevant, secondary sources. Also, if you introduce books, please provide the relevant quotes/sections that make these explicit claims, otherwise it is as good as impossible to judge the claim Arnoutf (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Primary sources are not better than secondary??? Sorry, this will have to be a project for someone with genius to understand what you are asking.124.190.56.138 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A primary source could in principle consist of the opinions of any person on any subject under the sun. A secondary source, at a bare minimum, shows that some other person thought that opinion worth repeating. Even the notion of what constitutes a holy book is determinable due to secondary sources: no-one would consider my high school notebooks to be Holy Writ, even if I had prefaced each exercise with 'God spake all these words and said:'. In a case like this, the sources you (or Gottservant, if you're not them) have produced contradict each other, and aren't all talking about the same thing. For example, the purported existence of love/sex gods like Eros, Amor or Kama directly contradicts theologies which accept a single unified deity in the sense this article generally means. For the Christian - and it is largely Christian - idea that love and God are in some sense identical, you'd want an article on specifically Christian theology, rather than the more general article you've got here. It would be very misleading to introduce a specifically Christian idea as a main plank of an article that's not specific to Christianity. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against an edit like "The Gospel of John claims that God is love." This way it is clear who says it and who believes it, the edit is a neutral statement. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't either provided it's WP:DUE and other equally noteworthy views are presented. Maybe a section on "diverse or secondary attributes," including "God is everything", "God is the Ground of All Being", "God is inconceivable", "God hates us", and "God is AFK". Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing it.58.6.242.229 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Christians believe Jesus is also God and the Son of God; that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that there is no way to the Father but through him; and that The Holy Spirit is also God, the third Person of the Holy Trinity, three Persons in One God. Patzcakes (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

no one know the god

so dont add picture -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.100.182 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

no one know you say

so dont bad grammar -_-

Or, if I'm not going to be a dick about it: no one smart enough to read seriously thinks the picture is God. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Relationship with Dog?

God is dog backwards. I think we should have a whole separate section on the correlation between the two deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.232.62 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be interesting if we are able to also provide the relation between the words Dnoh Ednuh Neich Orrep and names of God (words are Dog backwards in Dutch, German, French and Spanish). More seriously, random co-occurrence, nothing to it let it be. Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My former dog used to think he was God, so far as I could tell, and I think other former dog owners might have encountered the same sort of thing, but I don't that topic gets a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

God is not a name, and is not identifier

In any language:- A Word is with meaning but it is not always a noun. A noun is a word but it is not always a name. A name is a noun and it is always identifying a person or a property or a thing, or etc. In English do you call your cat or dog with word "Cat" or Dog", no I don't think so. The word GOD is not a name but each human calls his/her god some name(s). In real life and in the World we have Humans, Animals, and Gods. Each of those when they are intelligent or important or important-to-someone, they have names in the World. Therefore, how can you call your god as "God", it is not reasonable. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And what point aimed at improving this article do you want to make with this rather convoluted text? Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

god versus God

I do consider it a minor edit to update the grammar of the God page, but I understand the concern at my edits. Interestingly, AlexTiefling had this to say when he undid my edits, "This article is about the monotheistic conception (sic) of God. You can't just say 'god' with lowercase g and no article." Ironically, with his own words, he exposes the problem. His sentence does have an article, so why no lowercase "g"? Certainly, the semantic meaning of the sentence is, "the monotheistic concept of a god."

But it makes the point that I should have changed the sentences in the instances where I downsized the case in order to incorporate the necessary article. Indeed, in English speaking, Christian dominated countries, in common speech people are overwhelmingly ungrammatical when they use the term "God" without an article, when referring to the general concept of a god, written or spoken, like Alex did (in fact, I could have written "the general concept of God" and most here would not have noticed the error). I believe this is because of the frequency with which the proper noun is employed to refer to their specific god by Christians. I hope you will give me the go ahead to try these changes. To not do so, leaves the article laden with cultural bias (intentional or not). I will not mark the changes as minor.Kcornwall (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No, God is regarded as a proper noun by everyone but you. "Monotheistic conception of" is not an article, "the" or "a" are articles. "Monotheistic conception of" is an adjective-modified noun phrase being used as an adjectival phrase. Your own idiosyncratic grammar is out in line with every work of theology or comparative religion that anyone here cares about, and still not in line with the majority of unacceptable sources.

That is why MOS:CAPS#Religion (which says to capitalize God when referring to the transcendent deity) was put in place. That is why it is a social contract with the backing of the majority of the site's users.

Ignore that the two words are homonyms save for capitalization, they are distinct. "God" (uppercase) refers to the transcendent deity shared by a number of religions, while "god" (lowercase) refers to a range of possibilities that includes God but also drastically different figures not shared beyond their proprietary religion.

Your belief that the capitalization is specifically Christian is not shared with you by Bahais, Deists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Unitarian Universalists, and other religions that believe in a transcendent deity (as well as Freemasonry, which isn't a religion but a compliment to any theistic religion). Except for the most bigoted members of those religions (and Christianity), those religions do generally believe that they more or less are concerned with the same transcendent deity, even if they do not agree at all on Its nature, qualities, or relationship to existence. And in English, "God" (with a capital G) is the term used to refer to that shared transcendent deity. That is the assumption of all but the most fringe theologians, scholars of comparative religion, and even atheist writers.

Because of your rather specific focus on Christianity (as if it has a monopoly on God and religion, like it's some sort of anti-atheism instead of a distinct belief system), I cannot imagine you even considered those other religions' existence (much less their beliefs). Not considering those religions' beliefs when discussing a shared trait among those religions would leave you about as qualified to edit articles relating to shared theology as Ken Ham is to speak on biology. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Ian. I have to say that I have come to expect a more thoughtful and balanced reply from editors, especially of serious articles. You speak for everyone but me, do you? For you, even where an article and lower case might be inserted to make the distinction clear when the term IS referring to one of "a range of possibilities," that's out of the question to try?

When you say "...more or less are concerned with the same transcendent deity," how isn't that exactly part of "a range of possibilities?" This is precisely the kind of fuzzy thinking I am asking this article to disabuse itself of. No doubt it works for those who would like to see their own personal belief validated therein to the extent that it is possible to somehow distort the fact of multiple gods inthe Hindu pantheon into imagining that a common Hindu on the street shares the Christian belief in a single transcendent deity. I am sure that it makes people feel better to gloss that everyone's else's god is just a poor version of their own God. But when it is obvious to everyone else that there is little or no overlap in the way those gods are defined by the believers themselves, then it is self-serving and disingenuous to promote it as otherwise.

Speaking of self-serving, with your reference to theologians there is little that is neutral, objective or scientific about what they have to say. As this is not an article on theology, why should we care much about what theologians think, except to mention it in passing or in footnotes? On the other hand, there are anthropologists (who you neglect to mention), who absolutely love to study and write about the supernatural beliefs of humans, and yet in all of their writings they NEVER capitalize "god" - unless quoting the natives. So, I guess the question is whether this is going to remain a summary of subjective conceptualizations echoed back and forth between members of the tribe, or is it going to exemplify an objective exploration of the subject?

I would like the chance to edit this and leave it to the group whether it is made clearer. Kcornwall (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that anthropologists study the human being and their belief in a range of possible deities that includes God ; or in other words that indeed anthropologists study the belief in gods in general not specifically God. So in my view that only supports Ian's comment. Arnoutf (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Kcornwall, you are a biased editor, and you are trying to POV-push. I'm not going to pretend I condone that. MOS:CAPS#Religion is the will of the community. I've never edited that page, and I'm pretty sure it was here before I was, so you can't pretend it's my idea.

Bringing up common Hindu belief exposes your ignorance on the matter further, provides an additional point, and makes your prior accusations of Christian bias in the article even more ignorant. In Hinduism, all the gods are merely different understandings and aspects of the transcendent being, called Brahman in most Indian languages and God in English.

If you do not see why one would consult theologians in discussing an article about religion, in other words, if you cannot see the point in consulting the people that believe in something in the article on what they believe, you should not be editing articles relating to religion. To say that theologians have nothing to add to an article on God is just as ignorant (if not bigoted) as saying that philosophers have nothing to add to articles on ethics, art critics in art, or atheist writers on atheism. By the same logic, we might as well cite a physicist on neurology, since we obviously shouldn't self-serving neurologists.

And please cite some modern anthropologists who, when referring to a transcendent deity, particularly the one worshiped in any of the religions I've mentioned previously or in this article (such as Tengriism and Zoroastrianism), who refers to that figure as only "god" (not "a god," because as already established, "God" is "a god" as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at MOS:CAPS#Religion. It's well done. Unfortunately, it doesn't support your position at all, rather it undercuts it. " Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. Common nouns not used as titles should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god. In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity... So, "Allah" is listed as a proper name of a god right alongside another god (weirdly) named, "God" Not interchangeable, not synonyms, nothing about whether any of them happen to be transcendent. Moreover, it is only in the context of the Bible to refer to the deity by the name "God" ! It couldn't be clearer that your position and the God article is woefully non-compliant with this.

Next point. Sorry, science always trumps ideology and opinion (i.e. what theologians and philosophers think without experiment and evidence to sort the crap out amounts to pure speculation). As a matter of fact, neurologists are not scientists, and have no place contributing to an article on neurology (appropriate would be an article on neurologists). It is scientific medical researchers who inform the practice of neurology and should contribute to that article. Thank you, though. With your example, you continue to make my point for me.

Now to the Hindu god, Brahaman, which has as much in common in it's attributes and actions with Jehovah as a goat does with a trout. Now you may be able to find a few attributes they share. But even then, it requires all of them to achieve an identity match in the world I live in. But that is not the point, the point is that the name of the Hindu's god is not God, nor do they refer to their god with that name or title. So, even if there were any similarity to the Christian god, named "God" (the single proper name or title in the whole article according to MOS ), I am suggesting that when we contribute, we pay due respect to Hindus and readers and write, "the Hindu god, Brahaman," treating all similar references to non-Christian, non-God-named deities, either with their proper name or in lower case, preceded by the appropriate article, of course.

So. Is Ian the last word here? Anyone? Can I edit this? I'm using MOS as my incontestable reference Kcornwall (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Go and read this. Take its words to heart. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @AlexTiefling:, for pointing out the inherent problem with KCornwall's claim that MOS:CAPS#Religion supports his position. The bit @KCornwall: highlights is only in discussion regarding articles which mention the Abrahamic deity, like Abraham, but not multiple figures in comparison outside the Abrahamic religions, such as Conceptions of God.

KCornwall, Wikipedia does not care about "The Truth", it is concerned with what is verifiable. In terms of documenting religious belief, that means checking with sources that document religious belief, which would verifying with sources written by theologians who document common beliefs of their religions. Your problem with theological sources would be a valid objection if someone was trying to cite a theological source on a scientific topic (I've done my share of arguing against Bible-thumpers regarding evolution). Instead, you are complaining about citing theological source for the articles on theology, which reveals you're just an incompetent bigot with an axe to grind. You cannot complain about religion not being scientific while also expecting the articles on religion to be scientifically sourced: either religion is not a scientific topic and so must be described by citing sources merely concerned with documenting belief rather than gauging it, or else religious belief can be somehow be gauged which even I have to object to. By the illogic you present, Ode on a Grecian Urn would not have its Themes or Critical Response sections, if many of the others. Like the Bible-thumping fundamentalist, you have confused your sincere atheistic conviction with being objectively right.

Allah is used when discussing the Arabic word for God (or, if one prefers, God is used when discussing the English word for Allah), not merely God in Islam. Arabic speaking Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Bahais use the term to refer to God. By the way, I used the term Abrahamic religions earlier because, as I've said before, only the absolute most hateful members of Christianity and Islam do not acknowledge that both religions share the same deity. To pretend that Allah and God, even if they were uniquely Islamic and Christian terms (which they are not), refers to two completely irreconcilably distinct deities only shows that you don't know what you're talking about and should just stay away from articles concerning religion. Brahman is used in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, making it the equivalent in native Indian philosophy.

Additionally, your comment that neurologists "aren't scientists" and should not be cited on neurology leaves me convinced that you seem to believe that scientists are some sort of atheist priesthood instead of individuals to practice and study scientific pursuits as a career (either theoretical or practical), and are either being contrarian to the point of cutting off your nose to spite your face, or you don't believe that medical science is a thing. If these were your first edits, I'd instead have to assume you were a troll. It amazes me that someone could be so unaware of what the basic beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam are. I'm not criticizing a lack of acceptance of those beliefs, I'm specifically criticizing that you know nothing about this topic, have demonstrated your ignorance completely, and yet refuse to consider that you know nothing. It's worse than the young earth creationists causing trouble at Talk:Evolution because they at least bother to study erroneous strawman arguments instead of pulling their ignorance out of their bum and wearing it like a crown.

I am not the final word, I am merely warning you what the community's reaction will be.

And I'm still waiting on your anthropology articles... Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep,I know the reference and took it to heart. If there were more than three people in this discussion, it might be relevant.

I won't answer your ad hominem attacks except to say that you're both very good at convincing yourselves, by means of cherry-picking theology, ignoring history, and typically defensive twists of logic used by Christians, that the purported existence of gods in other religions outside the Abrahamic, is not a stark assault on your own beliefs - after all there is no way to tell who is correct, right? Your successful attempt here, so far, to gloss over the inconvenient fact that these other irreconcilable gods (by the very definition of their own believers including every day Christians one more), places you in a faith-critical, if not culturally-bigoted situation, and no doubt brings you great comfort. So there! Can we please thenceforth not continue in this vein?

References supporting my perspective.

The observation in the first is cogent and nails our mutual situation here with amazing accuracy. God or god?

Here is a typical Anthropology syllabus which reinforces the MOS:CAPS#Religion guidelines.

By insisting that Hinduism is monotheistic, you gloss the complexity. But it's a moot point, this article doesn't position Hindus in that way.

Now, if no one else is going to join in here but you two, and you are going to stubbornly hang on to your position, excluding the participation of someone new to the community with, yes, a new perspective (anthropological), and new contributions, referenced contributions, then I'm not going to fight it, it disrespects the spirit of Wikipedia.Kcornwall (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you could count you would get to 4 people in the discussion, although neither me nor AlexTiefling made it impossible to respond by creating the lengthy essays Kcornwall and Ian.Thompson do. These are just too much to read, which makes constructive discussion as good as impossible.

Furthermore there seem to be some fallacies in your argumentation. Neurologist are no scientists - I can accept that if you label them as medical professionals, and make the distinction between medical scientists and medical professionals. However, this would then also go for all other occupations. Anthropologists are no scientist (but humanity professionals etc.).

Also you typical anthropological texts does indeed talks about gods and goddesses (lower case), but nowhere does anyone here state that this is inconsistent with the capitalization agreed upon for this article. That usage is clearly about comparisons of multiple deities and does not necessarily refer to God as a (single) supreme being.

If you want to change God to god in this article that will have major consequences for the contents. Actually in my opinion you would have to change the contents to the article to something like that in deity and Pantheon (gods). So changing it would be much more than merely changing capitalization. If this is indeed your intention, be open about it (and be advised that chances are about zero you will succeed) . Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there are other articles about gods, this one is about God. He/she won't get this article deleted and redirected to one of those articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Kcornwall, the about.com link you've shared does not support your view. It does say that a shared figured called God should be capitalized. It would merely support decapitalizing God when discussing "the god of the (insert religion)," but not "the god called God as understood by (whatever religion)" And that you again call "multiple religions share the same god" shows you don't know what you're talking about. And citing an atheist website to demonstrate that those religions do not share the same deity is like citing a Christian website on Hindu theology. The syllabus you cite doesn't support decapitalizing God when referring to a shared deity commonly called God. The Christian site you bring up is "not affiliated with or sponsored by any denomination or single church" (meaning that that site only represent their personal beliefs, not even a fraction of the religion), is definitely fundamentalist and fringe, and deals with the question "I think there must be a god for every nation" (which is monistic polytheism, a different issue). Your "citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit," which is a problem. Also, at no point did I present Hinduism as monotheistic, but as pantheistic. You were the one who demoted the whole religion to mere polytheism.

Regarding your behavior: that you refuse to address me pointing out your demonstrated ignorance because you think calling it an ad hominem ends the discussion only makes you look like you cannot address the issue. You've shown no knowledge of religion, and run away attacking me while hypocritically accusing me of attacking you by calling attention to that. Then you say "Can we please thenceforth not continue in this vein," holding others to a standard of decorum immediately after violating that same standard. You are a POV-pushing hypocrite who knows nothing about this subject. That you're accusing me of doing this out of some inability to handle the idea that people worship other gods (when I've been studying Greek mythology for more than two-thirds of my life, only to branch out into studying all sorts of belief systems) is insulting. If you were paying attention, you'd have caught my comments denigrating young earth creationists, indicating that I'm not a fundamentalist. Hell, if you even bothered to look at my user page, you'd know that I'm a proud Discordian Pope, who regularly removes attempts to insert actual Christian biases into the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Branched off for the benefit of others who wish to stick to the core matter): The crux of the issue appears to be that KCornwall is acting on the belief that the many different religions mentioned in this article do not share the same deity ("repeats the same argument without convincing people"), which would be an appropriate reason to call what they worship gods instead of God; and that to insist so is a Christian bias ("undue importance to a single aspect of a subject"). This is, of course, absolutely wrong, because Muslims look at (at least) Jews and Christians and say "same deity, different understandings", Jews view any religion that fits the Noahide Covenant as acceptable for gentiles, Hindus hold that all religions describe the same truth in different ways, as do Sikhs. Freemasonry, while not a religion, also holds that most religions worship the same deity. To say that it's a Christian bias is laughable. Claims of a Unitarian Universalist are less ridiculous. Still, since we're discussing multiple religions, the Catholic church (i.e. the largest denomination in Christianity, which for the record I'm not a part of) says that other religions worship the same God, if differently. Again, it is only fringe fundamentalists who are the most likely to say that they do not worship the same deity found in other religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Amen to that sais the atheist ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add my agreement to the chorus. This is comparable to Dracula (not as to the mythicness of that figure, but its name usage). Many stories have been told about Dracula in many cultures, some depicting him as a villain and some appropriating him as an antiheroic or even a heroic figure) but despite these many competing depictions we do not refer to them as draculas, but as Dracula. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies must be rectified

This page does not address the broadest umbrella that is god. The page is inaccurate.

This is not a complete dissertation by far and I would need someone to collaboratively insert the proper hyperlinks and citation bubbles but at the very least the opening statement needs to be addressed and its inaccuracies rectified. I apologize for my apparent sloth; it is not that I am unwilling to do the work it is that I simply haven't the experience required to publish something polished yet.

Improper capitalizations in lieu of proper hyperlinks.

Please change X [God is often conceived as the Supreme Being ... but through different, overlapping concepts or mental images of him.]

to Y [God is a concept espoused by, and oft debated ... inculcated by Theism while rejecting the supernatural elements present in Religion.]

God is a concept espoused by, and oft debated amongst, theists. This concept attempts to explain an immesurable phonomenon, much like our concept of Time; just as time is not a fixed, static reality the broad Philosophical concept of god is neither fixed or static. God is a symbol that represents man's explaination of the universe; its creation, continued existence, and the mechanisms by which the universe continues to be.

Each culture has it's own interpretation of god based largely on tradition, heritage, and common mores. Christianity divides god into two polar opposite concepts, named God and Satan, to explain the nature of existence whereas Buddhists regard god as Nirvana. Whilst there are, oftentimes, vast differences between interpretations they all abide by the defined idea that god is "the supreme or ultimate truth or reality". Even athiests, who deny the validity of theism and its theistic-interpretations based in Faith, adopt a Scientific "god" in their attempts to describe, explain, and ultimately understand the phenomenon we call Existence. Deism embraces the existence of god inculcated by Theism while rejecting the supernatural elements present in Religion.

TheLeopardTree (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

 Not done Too limiting (not only theists debate god) and "rejecting the supernatural elements present in Religion" is unsourced and inaccurate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Properly linked and particularities addressed. I certainly hope I don't have to cite a dictionary. Deism - Oxford "Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe." Origin late 17th century: from Latin deus 'god' + -ism.

God is a concept espoused by, and oft debated amongst, philosophers. This concept attempts to explain an immesurable phonomenon, much like our concept of time; just as time is not a fixed, static reality the broad philosophical concept of god is neither fixed or static. God is a symbol that represents mans explaination of the universe; its creation, continued existence, and the mechanisms by which the universe continues to be.

Each culture has it's own interpretation of god based largely on tradition, heritage, and common mores. Christianity divides god into two polar opposite concepts, named God and Satan, to explain the nature of existence whereas Buddhists regard god as Nirvana. Whilst there are, oftentimes, vast differences between interpretations they all abide by the defined idea that god is "the supreme or ultimate truth or reality". Athiests, who deny the validity of theism and its theistic-interpretations based in faith, often adopt a scientific 'god' in their attempts to describe, explain, and ultimately understand the phenomenon we call existence. Jainists, Wiccans, Norse, Greeks, et at. & etc. describe the nature of being differently, though all describe god. Deism embraces the existence of god, inculcated by theism, while rejecting the supernatural influence depicted in religion.