Talk:Deity/Archive 1

Redirect
I wonder why this page redirects to God, a page that mainly describes the Christian view. I think deity or deities could be a god starting point for a more NPOV-centered reference to various deities in various belief-systems and religions? --till we *) 16:21 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)


 * I disagree, if you read the article God, it isn't remotely close to focusing on a judeau christian God. I feel strongly this page aught to redirect, its a stub w no future, and no special definition of its own. Sam [Spade] 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to humbly disagree with you, Sam. Allow me to quote the first two lines of God


 * "God refers to the supreme being, often conceived of as a ruler or creator of the universe. This concept of God is common in monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Brahmanism, Vaishnavism, and Shaivism interpretations of Hinduism.


 * When used as a proper noun, "God" is typically capitalized. This article is not about the concept of gods, goddesses and deities in general."


 * That's plainly monotheistic... ClockworkTroll 22:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You are correct sir. However, God is not necessarilly abrahamic. Sam [Spade] 22:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That, too, is correct. However, by definition a polytheistic religion does not have a single "supreme being" to the exclusion of other beings. In fact, God specifically states: "This article is not about the concept of gods, goddesses and deities in general."l it could be made to be such, but serious effort would have to go into balancing the emphasis. Additionally, I feel that the monotheistic god is so subject-rich that it deserves its own page, and I disagree with you that deity is destined to remain a stub forever. Much can be written on the many regional Buddhist ideas of deities alone. ClockworkTroll 22:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You have done a very good job, from what I have seen. I am now convinced this article is going somewhere, and that it should remain independant for the time being. I also think the different supernatural/spiritual entities aught to have a project, or template, or some sort of connection, and I agree with you that a reader might be looking for something other than the entry they find, or that they might well be interested in multiple entries on variations of spiritual entities. Sam [Spade] 23:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sam Spade. I appreciate that. I haven't done much with it, but I think this little Deity article has some potential, and I'll be happy to get it moving in the right direction. ClockworkTroll 23:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam's just informed me that this page now describes "deity" as excluding monotheism. I think that's incorrect, both in that it shouldn't exclude monotheism and also in that I don't think the article as it currently stands excludes monotheism. The disambiguation note at the top should be amended in light of that, IMO. Bryan 01:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seems strange to talk about the sage brushes ... surely a section on Animism or something like that would be more appropriate than this highly specific entry?

Definition
- The current definition seems too complex for the word. Isn't 'deity' just an asexual (having no evident sex) way to say 'god', so in general is 'a god or goddess'? I kind of like dictionary.com's definition 2a of deity, being "The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.", but again the main definition is 'a god or goddess'.

- Mirriam-Webster deity #2 states this.

- Cambridge deity states this.

- It should be pointed out that "The Diety" as a proper noun would mean a different thing (more the one supreme creator god or some such), but that should not be the main definition.

-Jayon 17:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV portion moved from article
Neither Gods nor other supernatural entities and forces figure in scientific theories, although scientists themselves may hold various religious views. But there have been controversial attempts to introduce God into science, for example, creationism, or Intelligent Design Theory, rejected by most scientists as pseudo-science.


 * I find this to be highly perjorative and innaccurate. Something very different could address these very ideas in an accurate, neutral manner. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Really, where do supernatural entities figure in any scientific theory? Or are you objecting to the characterization of creationism and IDT as pseudo-science? --BM 02:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolute infinite is one obvious example. And yes, I object to the usage of "rejected by most scientists as pseudo-science", if nothing else I'd like a cite on that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well that isn't a scientific theory. It is religious philosophy from a mathematician. That it was advanced by a mathematician doesn't make it science. I challenge you to find any evidence that the Absolute Infinite is taught in any level of mathematics courses, as mathamatics. You couldn't get a Ph.D. in Mathematics by writing about it. For that, you'd need to go to the Philosophy department, or perhaps you could get away with it as History of Science. --BM 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

definition
Isn't "supernatural entity" too vague (c.f. Talk:Atheism)? Deities in most books would presuppose consciousness. A formless "entity", maybe an algorithm, or an artefact, should not be classified as deities. Deities are in a sense 'alive', some may even die. Maybe "conscious being considered to be esentially above human comprehension" dab (&#5839;) 12:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deism, Panenthesim, Pantheism, Theism
Would it be appropriate to have a discussion of the differences between Deism, Panentheism, Pantheism, Theism? It seems most religions define deity according to one of the above four theological belief systems. Or is this down in another section? I am willing to write a brief description of each. The web site Religious tolerance.org has a nice explanation.

If you agree, where should it appear? Wjbentley 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Organisation
I think it would be a good idea to display the types of theism in a list, rather than a paragraph. It would make it easier to view each entry, and each would only require a brief description whilst linking to a main article. As it stands, there are lots of sentences together that all begin '(insert type of theist here) is...', and it's quite difficult to find a specific type.

Just a thought.--Jcvamp 00:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
As given, from Old Persian, it's bogus. "Deity" comes into English from Latin, not from Persian. Of course it's cognate; the "dyeu-" element in Indo-European languages is very widespread, but Old Persian is ancestral to neither Latin nor English. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. A search on Dictionary.com and at Etymology online both say it came from Latin.  I'm goign to change the etymology here to the Latin reference.  If someone can provide some sort of citation for the Persian thing, then let's see it.  --DarthBinky 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

...In the first sentence the word 'who' is present, I feel 'which' should be replaced because of the circumstance of 'a' which is available towards the end of that sentence. I will review the rest of this content and post any regard of concern, thank you.David George DeLancey (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

borus??
we've had a vandalized very first line since 8 August?? Pay attention a little bit when editing, please :( dab (&#5839;) 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

cool

Non-definition
The introduction says a deity is: with all but the first being optional or mutually exclusive.
 * 1) a postulated preternatural being
 * 2) of significant power
 * 3) worshipped
 * 4) thought holy, divine or sacred
 * 5) held in high regard
 * 6) respected

The definition of preternatural in turn boils down to "unnatural" in the sense of "abnormal".

As an atheist I find it incredibly difficult to figure out what constitutes a deity besides irrational, blind faith. Especially as many theists I know seem to rationalise their faith or at least try to do so.

Maybe I'm just trying to find a way to prove to myself that theists are not obsessing over something irrational defying mental sanity. 91.0.105.239 19:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (Ashmodai)


 * You might want to look up UPG and/or theophany. There is no evidence that religious faith is in any way connected with mental illness.
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But certainly religious faith fits perfectly many definitions of what a mental illness is. --Taraborn (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this, but can we get some references in here? I'd really like to use this stuff- but it's difficult to follow up.

Buddhism in the "Relation with humanity" section
Here is a quote of the last six paragraphs of the current "Relation with humanity" section: "It may not be readily apparent what form a religion actually takes. Religions that avow monotheism may in fact be henotheistic in that they recognize the existence of several echelons of supernatural, immortal, deity-like beings in addition to the supreme God, such as angels, saints, Satan, demons, and devils, although these beings may not be considered deities. Adherents of polytheistic religions, such as certain schools of Hinduism, may regard all gods in the pantheon as manifestations, aspects, or multiple personalities of the single supreme god, and the religions may be more akin to pantheism, monotheism, or henotheism than is initially apparent to an observer.

The many religions do not in general agree on which gods exist, although sometimes the pantheons may overlap, or be similar except for the names of the gods. It is frequently argued that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same monotheistic god, although they differ in many important details. Comparative religion studies the similarities and contrasts in the views and practices of various religions. The philosophy of religion discusses philosophical issues related to theories about gods. Narratives about gods and their deeds are referred to as myths, the study of which is mythology. The word "myth" has an overtone of fiction; so religious people commonly (although not invariably) refrain from using this term in relation to the stories about gods in which they believe themselves.

In Buddhism "gods" or devas are beings inhabiting certain happily placed worlds of Buddhist cosmology. These beings are mortal (being part of saṃsāra), numerous and are not worshipped; it is also common for Yidams to be called deities, although the nature of Yidams are distinct from what is normally meant by the term.

The Buddhist Madhyamaka argue strongly against the existence of a universal creator or essential being (such as Brahman), yet Buddhists are not atheist or agnostic - due to these terms being strongly tied to concepts of existence. Some Prasangikas hold that even the conventional existence of universal (monotheistic) deities is a non-existent, whereas others consider that the conventional existence of such a being is an existent.

Some modern Buddhists, especially in the west, believe that deities (and God) exist in the same manner that elves or unicorns do - as an archetypal consensual entity that serves a purpose in the popular imagination; and in this limited sense, God exists.

Though this may seem a rather weak basis of existence for some, as Buddhists (such as the Yogacara) deny any objective existence (of e.g. a chair), and many more deny any sort of essential existence of phenomena at all, the distinction between the existence and non-existence of consensual entities is important to Buddhist philosophy. However, a necessary requirement of Candrakirti's (Prasangika) view is that existents must not conflict with essencelessness, and it is generally agreed by them that monotheistic assertions of deity do not make much sense without some assertion of essence, which itself is vehemently rejected, so thereby monotheistic (objectively/essentially existing) gods are non-existent even in a conventional sense. Of course these arguments are more to do with the delineation of the definition of existence than anything else."

A half paragraph for the Abrahamic religions and four paragraphs for Buddhism? I think the section on Buddhism should be trimmed down a bit, and replaced with a link to Buddhism, Madhyamaka, essencelessness, or some such thing.

Nowadays deities
car and television are the nowadays deities. ;) --Mac 20:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text
I removed the following text, posted by 204.211.224.12 (talk contributions):

Does this mean Jesus is a Demigod-the union between God & 'Mary'? ..."the offspring from a union of human with a diety "...

Questions really belong on the Talk page. Even if it's rhetorical, this one is probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I suspect it's something that people have been wrangling over for millennia...

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 13:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Modified article to point out that Madonna (entertainer) is God.
Madonna (entertainer) is God. I hope this will make the article more correct --UnbiasedMadonnaFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article deals about the general common noun "god" rather than the proper noun "God" you are referring to. If you'd like to assert that Madonna is the one true creator, a monotheistic deity, the article dealt with would be God. --Matt0401 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What about...
$DEITY, @DEITY, %DEITY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.163.154 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology - deus and dea?
83d40m: I would think that deity isn't derived from either deus or dea - it's derived from the morpheme that underlies these words. Are we in agreement on that? Ilkali (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so if the phrasing in the article is left constructed as it is, the inclusion of both seems less misleading to me. 83d40m (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't we list every Latin word that includes that morpheme? Ilkali (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would be tedious, but I think that listing the two avoids the implication of extending the bias of earlier times into our work. If you think "de" would be adequate, insert it and see who makes that an issue. I do not think it would be adequate, since it may imply other associations. 83d40m (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What implications does just listing deus have? Ilkali (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

History of monotheism
(moved from user talk:83d40m)

Some of the text you introduced to Deity:

"Tantalizing images of what may be tens of thousands of years of worship of deities who seem to have been unchallenged and essentially unchanged, therefore easily suggesting that perhaps, humans believed in a single deity initially"

This seems very non-neutral ("tantalizing"?), and feels like original research. Can you cite it? Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This entry was intended as a tenuous notation alluding to a greater discussion (or needed ones) in other locations in Wikipedia. They would be more appropriately discussed under the topics of monotheism, monotheism vs polytheism, paleolithic religious concepts and figurines -- granted that they might not exist as such yet..., but I thought that a passing comment was appropriate in a sub-category on monotheism when the real topic is deities. The existence of "religious" figurines and images in archaeological finds dating from 100,000 years ago to the beginning of written records about human concepts of deities is well documented and should not need references for most readers. There is a significant record of similar, singular images or themes being repeated consistently in many areas of the world. I did not want to characterize it or relate details about it in this article because I think it is beyond the scope of deities. Debates about the meaning of these figurines and images can become highly controversial and, without any means to be certain of their meanings, conjecture always will exist. I did not wish to step into that discussion in this article because it can not be addressed briefly, but wanted to allude to the the thousands of years with documented evidence that may be interpreted as related to a deity -- and especially, to one type -- over and over in many different cultures and temporal associations. I think that the existence of what is referred to as goddess figurines and images will continue to draw fascination and extrapolation without end. That is where it becomes tantalizing... because no one is ever going to be able to be definitive about them without some records of how they were thought of at the time they were created. Yet they represent the longest history of "religious" images known, and deserve mention under deity -- I think that not to mention the existence of such a preponderance of what appears to be evidence of single deities being worshiped by humans from such early dates, presents a biased perspective to our readers by its exclusion.


 * I did contemplate citing some of the discussion of their meaning, but as I said, decided that it was beyond the topic of deity, per se. I did not have much time and needed to close my edit. I should be able to go back in the next few weeks to reconsider a little expansion of the notation and to make some references or links for readers to get to articles that do discuss the images in more detail. Let me see if I can make changes that do not smack of personal research to you -- I did include "may", "seem", "perhaps", and "suggesting" in an attempt to avoid this originally. 83d40m (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

question about gods characteristics...
Ok, about the behaviors of gods among other things, Shouldn't it be worth noting that several portrayals of gods are basically fierce powerful beings who set down laws for Mortals and whileas a mere mortal can't get away with breaking one of these laws, a god (much less a chief god, or at the very least a leader of a kingdom) is able to get away with it if they do the exact same thing, using mortals as tools and throwing them away (I.E., Killing them or arranging for their deaths either by having a person carry it out (willingly or otherwise) or using the forces of nature to their disposal) when they no longer serve of any use to them, among other things? I mean, maybe you don't want that to be listed in the article, but I feel that it should at least be worth noting since many mythos (esp. Greek and Roman Mythology) since that's what I learned when I took some of these classes (specifically, Latin.)

Weedle Mchairybug —Preceding comment added by 66.32.252.245 (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How Many
I wonder if anyone can find a reference for how many deities have been postulated, and how many have fallen into disuse and how many the current world's religions recognize.--Counsel (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the problems would be that there could still be lurking believers afoot. Consider that Poseidon-belief (as Sam Harris notes) has pretty much ended. Yet he still gets occasional email from lone Poseidon Tridenters about picking on them. The 'disuse' criterion isn't going to work for a study. Of course, we could list off a bunch of religions that have decreased by an arbitrary size...but would that not be arbitrary? Let's try, anyway....Thor, Poseidon, Neptune, Apollo, Osiris, Horus, Orion, Quartzycoathanger,....my fingers hurt from typing.

"Preternatural" or "Supernatural"?
This isn't really properly considering the way many religions have seen their deities. How do Earth gods and Earth goddesses fit into this definition? If a deity is terrestrial and embodied in the plants or the earth, and considered to be the power behind growth, how can it be beyond the natural and how can it be supernatural, since "nature" is by very definition natural.

In addition, living men or dead historical figures have also been worshipped as gods without any supernatural or preternatural powers of creation being ascribed to them. What about the Roman emperors who were considered gods? What about Achaemenid god-kings?

None of these entities are preternatural or supernatural but were still revered as deities and referred to as deities. I think this article leans too much towards Judeo-Christian theology as far too many religious scholars lean. An encyclopedia should make less suppositions and be more open to provide a much broader definition for deities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthprophet (talk • contribs) 10:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to raise a similar issue with these terms, and saw the above comment. The issue is that conceptualizations of deities need not be "beyond nature") (either "preter-" or "super-"). The essential point is that religions assert that their deity(s) are real, and because anything real must conform to natural physical laws, it contradicts the religious premise to suggest that such deity(s) exist outside of nature. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Religions that avow monotheism may, in fact, be henotheistic...
I removed the entire statement marked with the neutrality disputed tag. This statement was indeed biased as it misrepresents the beliefs of those with monotheistic religions who claim to be monotheistic. Their claims are legitimate because of how "angels, etc" are explained in their religions, as tools of deities. The roles they play do not match those of deities. Therefore, these religions still only have a single deity and are indeed monotheistic. --Matt0401 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same monotheistic deity,
"It is frequently argued that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same monotheistic deity,"

Should the above sentence not read better as:

"It is generally, if not universally, agreed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same monotheistic deity"

The only folk I've ever come across arguing that the god of Muslims and Christians is not the same are a minor group of extremist red neck bible bashers in the USA. As far as I know the vast majority of folk across the world would agree that the god is the same for Jews, Christians and Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.145.192 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)