Talk:God/Archive 6

article focus!
ok. at the moment there is this disclaimer: This article is not about the concept of gods, goddesses and deities in general.. It's fair enought to have the main articles deity, goddess, and to make this article mainly about capital-G "God" (i.e. monotheistic god). But we cannot possibly give an account of any historical depth without referring to polytheism. Why, already the etymology section is forcibly at variance with the disclaimer. I suggest therefore we remove the disclaimer, and make a short History of Monotheism (or similar) section. After that, much material should be exported to main articles, such as to Names of God, Proofs of God's existence etc. where we can give more detail. The article will still be about capital-G-God, but even this reduced focus cannot be exhaustively covered in a single article. dab 10:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand that perfectly, but what I do hear (splitting off smaller articles, maintaining a focus on the monotheistic God, providing some explanation of / comparison w polytheism, etc.. ) I agree with. Sam [Spade] 19:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The article already links to "main articles" in some sections (such as God). However these sections could and should probably be shortened and merged if necessary into their main articles.  --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
User:The Rev of Bru, you must respect wikipedia policy if you are to remain here. One good starting point would be to discuss major changes in talk, and obey the concensus you find there. Sam [Spade] 15:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam is absolutely correct about that. Jayjg 20:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * agreed (well, the same applies to all of us). I made a few changes now, on being invited to do so; just to indicate the direction I would take to resolve recent issues (god vs God; monotheism vs polytheism; are 'gods' universal)? Feel free to alter and/or criticize. dab 22:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am ready to remove the NPOV dispute since the article is fine as it is. If howver some one... wants to make severe changes unilaterally, it will need to stay disputed, and be coupled w a request for protection. Talk page discussion is cool, severe unilateral, concensus defying changes are not. Sam [Spade] 00:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * while you have remained civil under attack, some of your changes were quite unilateral themselves (you stubbornly kept re-introducing "all cultures" in spite of and without reference to the ongoing discussion, which was what triggered Rev Bru's - admittedly too rude - complaints. I hope we can agree on a more detailed account of what sorts of cultures there actually are, now. dab 09:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * RevBru, this edit of yours annoys me; why "POV deletion of things sam doesnt agree with - again. Repaired."? You deleted the section I proposed to deal with the "all cultures" thing in more detail, which we don't know whether or not Sam agrees with because he didn't get the chance to see it. dab 12:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dab: Umm, I was mainly removing the POV section with the erroneous theistic 'definition' of atheism. If I did delete something of yours, it was not intentional, I was still not quite used to the edit system at that time.  Apologies for the spelling mistakes also, I didnt notice espouse was spelt as expose.  The Rev of Bru


 * Sam, you must ALSO respect wikipedia policy if you are to remain here. One good starting point might be to explain why you keep deleting anything you disagree with, or discuss concerns you have in talk.  (not simply claiming that the others are not.)  I have not commented here because the objection is to do with atheism and the erroneous definition sam insists on.  All cultures dispute is elsewhere also and seems to agree on the consensus that not all cultures have/ had a belief in god(s)(desses).The Rev of Bru 19:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Emergence of Monotheism:

"Sizeable minorities, mainly in industrialized countries, are secularized, agnostic or atheist."

I think that secularized should redirect to secularism instead of the disambiguaton page for secular simply because of the context. I'd do it myself, but I'm new here.

- Thorns among our leaves, 14:14, 7 November 2004.

Nevermind, I fixed it myself.

- Thorns among our leaves, 14:21, 7 November 2004. (UTC)

Atheism
Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. The only one claiming it is a belief is Sam Spade. He will admitted hating atheists (irrationally.) I would not allow a national socialist to define the word 'Jew.'  All he is interested in, in this case,  is pushing his erroneous assertion of what atheism entails on the wikipedia. Weak atheists lack belief in gods/ etc. Strong Atheists also lack belief in gods/ etc with the addition that specific gods are thought- not believed - to be impossible, self contradictory, disproven, etc. Some may even think that the notion of a supernatural entity in any form is inherently impossible, and think that all 'gods' are impossible. They do not, however, 'believe' that gods do not exist in a faith sense.

Style
Is it in the default style to bold something in disambig section? I have never seen it done and it looks really bad if we are bolding the "God" right after it. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  16:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not really clear what you mean, are you referring to the wikilinks? Sam [Spade] 16:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * he means that God is bold now in the disambiguatiopn header. I don't know why it is bold now, but I think we have more difficult issues to resolve first.... dab 18:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Dab got it right. but I think we have more difficult issues to resolve first.... Yeah, probably. --The Sunborn

reverts
guys, if you keep it up at this pace, the article will be protected soon. Sam Spade, Rev Bru, how about putting the case on RfC and leaving it to other eyes and hands to weed out POVs? I don't think we are in a very productive stage, at the moment. dab 18:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * All I am doing is trying to keep NPOV. Sam Spade is completely biased against Atheists (see his contributions page and talk - he claims to 'revile atheists' etc.  I am happy with the majority of the article, it is only the section on

'Atheists do not believe in any of the monotheistic 'God's, gods or goddesses.' being changed to a theistic POV that I really disagree with. See Talk-Atheism etc. Atheists do not believe (in the faith sense). The Rev of Bru


 * I've already requested protection, and if I am to put anything on RfC, it will be bru himself. Sam [Spade] 19:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a long article, and only minor parts are disputed. Protection of the page will stop the work also on undisputed parts that need work. I can see the issues you have with Bru's edits (and style of discourse!), while I can also see Bru's concerns. It seems a rather personal battle between you and Bru, right now, seeing that you just can't stand each other's style. If you could both agree to refrain from editing for some time and raise your points on the Talk page, and let others decide on a compromise, the situation might calm down. I don't know if you would accept me as a neutral intermediary; I would certainly try to address your concerns, and I would also step down and refrain from editing if you think I am biased. dab 09:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

try differently

 * Atheists do not believe in any of the monotheistic 'God's, gods or goddesses.

delete gods or godesses since this is an article about "God"; atheists can not believe in godesses on another page.

change to "believe in the existence" since it's more clear.

Now, if you have something against that, please state it clearly here where we can all attempt to understand it... Mozzerati 22:49, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
 * first of all: Bru: yes! please do not label your edits as simple "repairs", "vandalism reverts", "spelling fixes" etc. Try to reach consensus here, first. If it is really just a minor spelling issue, it may as well wait until we agree on the wording itself. Your edits are not as straightforward as you claim to think.
 * Mozzerati, this article is (in my understanding) about
 * the word god (Etymology)
 * the meaning of "God" vs. "god" (Capitalisation)
 * the concept of singular God
 * It cannot be not about "gods", because the concepts are interwoven. The point about the atheist part in the intro is that atheists do not believe in any of the concepts we are about to lay out. We need to say "God or gods" because the relation of the terms will only become clear after a lengthy paragraph. However, for "atheist" the subtleties do not matter, because by definition they reject the concept of "god" altogether. dab 12:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atheists do not believe in the existence of God...
This is true, but if you have a look at Atheism, it is currently protected, and talk:atheism appears to be hopelessly bogged down on this very particular. "Atheists do not believe in the existence of God. " is problematic because it is rather broad, and apparently there is no concensus on what limits there are to the catagory "atheist", where the line is drawn w agnosticism and ignorance (like say a person who hasn't made up their mind). Due to all of this, I suggest we remove the reference to atheism until atheism provides a concensus definition we can comfortably refer to. I won't do this unilaterally however due to recent tensions here. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 23:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We can still link to Atheism, and we do not need to go into details here. For our purposes the basic meaning is enough: We only mention atheists to get out of the way the fact that to some people, the subject matter of this article has no validity as a concept. The existence of such a view has no further bearing on the article. An atheist is somebody who rejects theism, i.e. it is somebody who (a) has heard about the concept of god and (b) rejects it. If he rejects it because he positively believes something else, or because he sees no sufficient reason to believe anything need not concern us here (although "they do not believe in god" is preferabe to "believe that god does not exist", because it avoids a positive statements about their beliefs. "lack of belief" is not good: it implies that they 'should' believe, and that their 'lack' of belief is somehow a defect). dab 12:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason atheism is protected is because Sam Spade (or Jefferson For President as he now calls himself) (who, I might as well point out again,has repeatedly said that he hates atheists), and a couple of other theists, disagrees with the definition of atheism; not because atheists disagree with it.
 * Imagine if Nazis had a say in what the definition of Jew was. I know I have no call to define what christians believe; which is why I dont change those sections; I change the statements which are supposed to be NPOV and statements about atheism.  If I went around changing the definition of 'Christian' to 'Someone who believes in an invisible bearded fairy living in the sky, in opposition with reality' then I would be breaking the rules, as well as not being civil.  Yet this bigot is allowed to claim he is the only authority who knows what atheism is??  RFC him, and me if you like.  The Rev of Bru


 * Bru, just leave the bloody Nazis out of this, ok? It may be true that it is difficult to draw a line between atheism and agnosticism, but how does that justify protection of this page? A person who says "there is no God" is an atheist. A person who says "I really don't know whether or not there is a God" is an Agnostic. A person who says "Well, whether or not I believe that we can decide God's existence very much depends on your definition of God..." may be either. Now, as a theist, I would wisely shut up about "ignorance (like say a person who hasn't made up their mind)", because if we start to argue this, the Christian headcount will dwindle dramatically! dab 15:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Check your sources Dab. Historically, an Agnostic believed that it was impossible to know whether or not (a) God existed, not someone who was not sure.  Don't attempt to redefine words, please.  A person who says 'God X cannot exist' is a strong atheist.  A person who says 'I have no belief in god X' for whatever reason, is a weak atheist.  Sorry, but with Sam Spades complete hatred of Atheists and Atheism, I do not think his POV can be anywhere near NPOV.  The Rev of Bru
 * I agree completely. That's just what I said. Where am I redefining terms, here? dab 08:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can we not just bloody agree on the fact that atheism is the opposite of theism (thus an atheist expresses no belief in a God/god/goddess/Higher Power/etc. [or respective pluralities]) and just leave it at that? Atheism has a particular relevance to the God page because the concept is not steadfast in atheism! - Thorns among our leaves

The atheism Talkpage is buggered, I don't go there :) let's not have that spill over here. For our purposes here it is indeed enough to say that atheists don't believe in God, and link to Atheism, and let that be the end of it. dab 08:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opening para
Hey, I was just wandering by and thought the opening paragraph could use a little tweaking. It's nothing substantial (I don't think), but there seems to be a bit of tension on this page, and I didn't want to accidentally cause a revert war. Here's my suggested text:

God is a term referring to a supreme being, generally believed to be the ruler or creator of, and/or immanent within, the universe. The concept of a singular God is characteristic of monotheism, but it is not always possible to draw a sharp distinction between some forms of monotheism and some forms of polytheistic (see also Henotheism).

Happy editing, -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I incorporated it, w a subtle distinction. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 23:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what exactly are the disputed points at this moment?
I feel we need to start over and discuss which specific points at this moment are felt to be biased / underrepresented / in need of clarification. I hope we can do this without any personal accusations or attacks. Of course we are all biased. Believers and Atheists will both inadvertedly come up with wordings that somehow imply their presuppositions. As long as this isn't done in bad faith, it should be enough to patiently and friendly point out the problems, back up the issue with references, and propose an improvement. Obviously, Believers of various faiths as well as atheists should all work together here, and all their conceptions of God should be equally present in the finished article.

We can argue about particular passages, as well as the overall toc arrangement. I am representing the toc structure below. Please insert any issues that you have with the present revision below:

intro
Are there any problems with this left? The source of the dispute used to be a statement "all cultures have gods", which has been moved to "emergence of monotheism" for more detailed discussion.
 * Sorry, minor problems, although it is more NPOV than it was.
 * "The supreme being" - which one? Is there one?  This is a statement.  It is POV.  Polytheists etc will disagree.  Should be a supreme being.
 * Not so much POV than mathematical implication of "supreme". See Gödel's ontological proof. dab 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I'm afraid. Never mind the arguments 'disproving' Godel, its still a belief that there is a supreme being; its still a point of view, it is not a fact, it is not something which people agree on.  And I refer to every non- monotheist here.The Rev of Bru
 * Much use of improper capitalisation on common noun version of God. When used as a proper noun, should be capitalised.  When a common noun, shouldnt. The Rev of Bru
 * you have a point. "a supreme being" is an arguable wording. "the supreme being" is, too: atheists may take it to mean "the supreme being as defined by Godel's entirely academic model". dab


 * God is systematically capitalized when referring to the singular/supreme God: "a singular God", "Some concepts of God" (vs concepts of some gods), "to imagine God"'' (vs. to imagine a god) etc. I agree that "God" is mentioned too often for such a short paragraph (matter of style) dab 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Theists do that: its still grammatically incorrect; or 'a special rule.' At this stage, the article is still talking about different perspectives on different monotheistic gods, is it not?  Different, seperate, discrete gods.The Rev of Bru
 * I insist on 'special rule'. English is a natural language, and if "God" evolved as a special case, that's how it is. I also insist that it is an important, even for atheists, for disambiguating different concepts. dab 20:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * secular interpretation of god: who does? Is this using the word secular in the modern, common use sense or in the outdated "not in church' sense?  If the latter, I suggest something along the lines of 'private, personal interpretation of god, not affiliated with organised religion,' or something like that. The Rev of Bru
 * Good question. I think I inserted this. I was using it to mean "outside religion/church". It may be better to remove the "sometimes even secular" bit. dab 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You had better do it, my stalker will change it back if I do. The Rev of Bru
 * sorry, the changes here are too rapid for me to keep up. I would rather approve if people sought consensus before editing. dab 20:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

etymology
This should be the easiest section, and is afaik undisputed.

capitalisation
spellings "God" vs. "god" in the intro led to disagreement in the intro, and this section is suppose to cleanly discuss the issue. it is still incomplete. Bru wanted to have a reference to (polytheistic) god used as a common noun. His statement has somehow disappeared again, but I don't think there's a problem with it (believers and atheists alike will agree that in polytheism, god is a common noun). As for "God" as a proper noun, I think it is better to say "like a proper noun", because it is a special case (the only noun that went through a stage of being written in ALL CAPS, so that "God" is not just "god" with capital G, it is (historically) "GOD" with lowercase "od".
 * yes, but my actual point was that if one were not referring to any specific god, then the word is also a common noun. One could be talking about one of the monotheistic gods, but not one in particular, and still use it as a common noun.  When referring to Yahweh, Allah etc specifically, it should be capitalised.  Hence the quotation marks around 'God,' this was a compromise because some Theists were refusing to accept the proper grammatical usage in "Atheists do not believe in a god, gods or goddesses."  Common noun.  Like 'cat' or 'dog'.  Its only a proper noun when referring to a specific cat which is called 'Cat.'  Likewise god is only a proper noun when referring to a god called 'God.'  I also agree with the part about the proper noun being historically 'GOD.'  If this is debated any more, would it not be more feasible to change the instances of 'God' with the proper name of the god being discussed?  (YHWH, Yahweh, Allah, etc etc etc.)The Rev of Bru
 * well, the point of this section is really that "God" is just the English translation of both YHWH and Allah (Jews and Muslims will also agree that YHWH/Elohim and Allah translate each other; Allah and Elohim are even etymologically related). I agree that 'God' is a proper noun, so you cannot say 'a God', and 'god' is a common noun. Therefore, I think it is correct to say that "atheists do not believe in the existence of either God or gods or goddesses". This could also be replaced by "atheists do not believe in the existence of any deity". dab 15:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But the gods that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in are not always held to be the same 'God' - they have different properties, different stories about them, different areas of belief. Some think they are the same god, some do not.  The 'God' of each of these belief systems is a proper noun.  But when it is not referring to the name of one of these gods, it is not a proper noun, it is a common noun.  There are different concepts of a monotheistic god.  Atheists believe in none of these.  Atheists do not believe in any of the myths of 'a god.' (a god which some people call God, some call Allah, etc - no matter which of these it is.)  When using god as a common noun, it is not capitalised.  This is the point.  It should be a fairly minor point, but some people cannot accept that.  If you want to change the statement to 'atheists do not believe in the existence of any deities' to avoid using the term in the correct, but contested way, then feel free.The Rev of Bru
 * More regarding the capitalisation para; mention should be made that using a capital letter to indicate a common noun is incorrect grammatically, although believers do so to to their own god(s).
 * The point is: "god" is a common noun. "God" is a proper noun. I'm adding a reference to the capitalised pronouns, as they illustrate that it's a special case anyway. dab 12:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Para is good, but is there any reason why there shouldnt be a clarification on when it is and is not a common noun? The Rev of Bru

This section focuses too much on english speaking Christianity, and Abrahamic religions in general. Sam [Spade] 17:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam, are you sure you understand the point that is made in this section? It is about the English word "God" and its history in the English language. So, necessarily, this account must be centered on the English language, and its (Christian!) history. dab 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thats a completely false assumption. Many non-christians speak english, and even more english speakers discuss the God of other religions. Sam [Spade] 16:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

emergence of monotheism
this section should give an overview of the historical development of the concept, especially the relations between "God" and "gods". The aim should be that after this section, the terminology has been cleared up, and the following sections can actually discuss the concept of "singular God".


 * Sizeable minorities? Some countries have larger irreligious or atheistic populations than those who are religious.  (China, or Russia for example.  Scotland also is roughly half and half, which is not a minority.)  Also, parity with the rest of the document, 'denial of other gods' is a POV term.  Disbelief, perhaps. This is minor quibbling though.The Rev of Bru

existence of God
Arguments for and against God's existence with links to the two main articles.
 * I have no problem with it the way you have edited it, but someone (guess who) has a habit of deleting the links to the 'Arguments against God's existence.' OK with the NPOV, as is, with both sides being discussed.[[User:The Rev of

Bru|The Rev of Bru]]
 * not to nitpick, but how does "gratuitous" clarify the point? It sounds sarcastic, because the word usually refers to positive rewards given undeservedly, and not to punishment. It may be in order, however, to emphasize the severe level of suffering present in the world. Theologians of course have answers to this, in any case ;) dab 12:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gratuitous serves to clarify the point be meaning the suffering that is clearly not for a 'greater good.' For example, some might say that certain insects laying their eggs inside other living creatures in order that they might eat the creature from inside when they hatch, might seem evil to us - but it serves a greater good in that the insects get to reproduce etc.  Gratuitous evil, on the other hand, is evil which serves no purpose at all: a child being raped, tortured, mutilated and killed, or a fawn burning to death in a forest fire.  Its an important distinction in the argument.  Its not meant in the way I think you thought it was.  Maybe it is the wrong word, if people are misunderstanding it.  I shall change it to 'unnecessary.'The Rev of Bru
 * well, a hard-boiled Darwinist would say that the suffering is for the greater good of improving overall fitness. And a theist would of course say that it may not be unnecessary at all, because God's ways are unknown to man. "unnecessary" thus implies presuppositions. How about replacement by "severe"? dab 18:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Cobblers. A Darwinist would say no such thing. Evolution is not teleological, so suffering has no “purpose”. The theist’s response you give amounts to nothing more than “I don’t know”. You appear to confuses “gratuitous” with “gratuity”. Banno 20:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * correct me, but imho gratuitous is the adjective to gratuity. I did check webster's before commenting. A (hardcore) Darwinist would say: Suffering is selected for, because it is the mechanism that encourages organisms to avoid threatening situations. Therefore, the *capacity* for suffering has a "purpose" in the sense of increasing fitness. The actual presence of suffering is a mere consequence of this, as selection takes place (because if the threshold for suffering was so high that suffering were only to occur infrequently, a lowering of the threshold of suffering would be selected for in the interest of fitness). There will be no consensus for "unnecessary" or "gratuitous" anyway, so we can as well end the discussion here. that suffering or even severe suffering is present in the world is undisputable, and should be enough for the point at hand. Any additional 'rhetorical' adjective will lead to disputes. dab 13:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What exactly is a 'darwinist'? Its not a religion, you know!  Dabs.... where exactly are you taking this from?  There is no 'purpose' to evolution.  The organisms who survive and reproduce more effeciently tend to survive and reproduce more.  The argument has little to do with the capacity of organisms to feel suffering, it has to do with gratuitous, unnecessary suffering.  Evolution has no say on gratuitous, unnecessary suffering, such as forest fires.   No consensus on what constitutes unnecessary?  Is there anyone who thinks that a child being raped, tortured, mutilated and killed is necessary?  I seriously doubt it, even fundamentalists have some human emotions. The Rev of Bru
 * I know Darwinism is not a religion. But then I'm not religious either. The point here was whether suffering is necessarily "unnecessary". I answered that even (or especially) Darwinists could argue that it isn't, and that alone preculdes our portraying suffering as unnecessary. This discussion doesn't belong here. But "unnecessary" implies at least the possibility of "necessity". "necessity" may either mean 'logical unavoidability' or 'required for a particular purpose'. If we dispute the existence of any purpose altogether, "unnecessary" means simply "avoidable". Is suffering avoidable? For individuals, maybe. Globally, judging from a purely scientific, i.e. empirical viewpoint, no. In my argument above, in a darwinist picture, I took 'necessary' to mean 'conductive to improved fitness'. While optimizing fitness may not be the 'purpose' of 'blind' evolution, it is purely descriptively its outcome, or, figuratively, its aim. dab 17:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This section neglects non-Abrahamic faiths. Sam [Spade] 23:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

theology
this section should maybe have its title changed, maybe to "theology" as it deals with theology, i.e. classification of different conceptions to be discussed in the following sections.
 * Theism: belief in God or gods. Someone seems to have inserted a lot of information on the catholic belief system.  Should it not  go elsewhere, since Theism is a very, very broad umbrella and not all Theists have similar conceptions of their gods?  Don't delete the part, just move it to a more appropriate place, and have the basic definition of Theism that everyone should agree on.  The Rev of Bru
 * section renamed. Bru's suggestion remains unanswered. It may have to do with the different meanings of theism, or with confusion of deism with theism. dab 17:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

conceptions of god
list of conceptions, roughly historical. It should be cleaned up, e.g. the Hindu terms should get their own subsection. dab 07:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a little more information on the Biblical section, regarding God having emotions, etc? The Rev of Bru

unity or trinity
this section should in my view be merged with the following section, as it is already about particular "conceptions of God". &mdash; nobody objected, so I did it. dab 17:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

gratuitous
who sez suffering is ever gratuitous? why can't it all be deserved, or karma? Sam [Spade] 20:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ahh. A good point, but the line says “The problem of evil argues that gratuitous suffering is inconsistent with an omnipotent but benevolent God.” It states an apparent inconsistency between gratuitous suffering and a benevolent, omnipotent god, without stating that gratuitous suffering exists. Is this not NPOV enough? Banno 22:17, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. Sam [Spade] 22:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I can live with what it says now too. --
 * In this form it is obviously ok. It used to say "the presence of gratuitous suffering present....", but in your version, the claim is properly NPOV-contained ;) dab 13:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was always referring to the argument, so I didnt see a problem with it, but if it is clearer to some now then fine. The Rev of Bru

Negative theology
I don't understand why such an obscure view aught be present in the intro. Similarly, I don't really agree with Atheism being mentioned there either, but at least atheism has some adherants to speak of, who is a negative theologist? Sam [Spade] 17:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * well, you wouldn't call Christianity a minority religion, would you? Negative theology is at the very core of Christianity, unless you want to dismiss figures as venerable as Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great. See also . dab 17:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I read over those links, and saw nothing about negative theology. Also, even if these guys thought God was "all-evil" (which I doubt), how does that make the concept notable enough to include in the intro (notice I don't suggest its complete removal, only from the intro). Sam [Spade] 20:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I guess I have no clue what "negative theology" means. I now even more strongly feel that it aught not be discussed in the intro, esp. in the way it was, which had me thinking it ment people thinking God was evil, and whatnot. By negative they ment... we should describe God by what he is not? Sorry, I need to read up more, but clearly what was there was very misleading. Sam [Spade] 20:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Calm down. there was nothing about 'all evil' there at all. You cut out:
 * Negative theology holds that God cannot be described by any positive attributes at all
 * You seem quite trigger-happy tonight; not all people editing this article are out to ridicule believers. This statement was completely harmless and factual. I imagine you misread it because of the moral connotations of 'positive', but something 'positive' is simply something that is 'posited'. Both etymologically and in actual use. We may try to clarify though, if you so whish. dab 20:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely. And I'm being bold, not trigger happy, and I'm pretty clam, and not assuming anything negatory about you, or whoever wrote that sentance. I just think it was misleading. Sam [Spade] 20:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ok. being bold is fine if you find a heartbreakingly dilapidated article somewhere in the backwaters of WP. After a level of tension has been reached, and this article is on the verge of being protected, it is not recommended to 'be bold'. rather, you should seek consensus before making further edits. We have no deadline for finishing this article, so let's sort this out cleanly. Look, you cannot just toss Negative theology just because you don't like the idea. The sentence means: "Some people believe that we can no true statement about what God is like. We can at most make true statements about what God is not like, because this is equivalent to our ability to make false statements about what God is like. Important early Christian saints argued like this." dab 20:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I didn't like the idea, I said the sentance that was there was blatently misleading. And if you think we need consensus prior to editing, request page protection. Thats what its for. Sam [Spade] 20:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, page protection is called for if people disregard consensus, or refuse discussion. If we are mature enough to talk prior to editing, we won't have to call for an uninvolved admin to un-protect and re-protect every time we agree to make a change. dab 08:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If the page is not protected, I will edit it at will. I will of course discuss any differences of opinion. Sam [Spade] 16:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * a practice very likely to get you into heated arguments, or even likely to get you flamed, but you know this, of course. Protected pages are the exception on WP, unpotected ones are the rule. Just because it's unprotected doesn't mean it should be edited at will. Pages with long histories will not like a passer-by to make random edits. But it's up to you, of course. And I do appreciate that you are willing to discuss your edits. dab 17:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly no passerby, I'd challenge you to find a more involved user on this page (or this talk page for that matter ;) Sam [Spade] 19:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * sorry, no offence. I was talkin about policy, and I stand by my statement, but I did not have you in mind in particular. dab 19:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

recent edits to "Emergence of Monotheism"

 * Emergence of Monotheism


 * This section makes many false claims, and utterly neglects the status of Hinduism as a religion with a one God concept (Brahman and / or the Hindu trinity) as well as Hinduism being the oldest existant religion!


 * Sam [Spade] 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I rewrote it, moving back to article. Sam [Spade] 17:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * [cutting verbatim quote to save space]
 * ok, so it seems you see the following statements as false claims:
 * Historically, the concept of a singular God is relatively recent.
 * there is hardly *any* evidence of monotheism earier than Hellenism. If you insist that the Kingdom of Israel was monotheistic (rather than henotheistic), that was a big exception. I think this claim is about as factual as you can get.


 * Why not Hinduism? Sam [Spade] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Other early examples of emerging monotheism around roughly 1000 BC
 * logically, if you contest that monotheism is younger than polytheism, you have to contest that it was 'emerging' at this time. But why keep the 'early examples' phrase, then?


 * Because Judaism and Zoroasterism were emerging around this time. Sam [Spade] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The worship of polytheistic gods, on the other hand, much predates monotheism
 * if this is 'seen by some', they must be the people that actually look at the records. Of course some may not see this, but that would be their personal choice of ignoring history. Somehow it seems you feel that monotheism is portrayed as inferior because it came later, but this is not implied here at all. It is rather a 'more civilized' form of religion, and you may consider its emergence as progress. of course the historical presence of monotheism says nothing about the existence, or eternity, of God.


 * I disagree, but its irrelevant if you accept my point about Hinduism. Sam [Spade] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that you may define 'sanatana dharma' to extend to 2000 BC, but that has no bearing on monotheism at all. dab 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That POV seems to be our primary sticking point. Sam [Spade] 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sizeable minorities, mainly in industrialized countries, are secularized, agnostic or atheist.
 * I'm quite nonplussed how you can view this as a false claim


 * I didn't say it was false (altho it is), rather I removed it as irrelevant to the "emergence of monotheism". Sam [Spade] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * it was connected with the statement that both polytheism and animism survive, but fine, cut it out. dab 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Concerning Hinduism, it has a history. It is a successor of the Vedic religion. And the earliest instance of a remotely monotheistic concept, in the precursor of Hinduism, is right there in the paragraph, you didn't toss it as a false claim either, namely the rigvedic hymns to a creator god. Hinduism is not a single religion, not to mention the 'oldest extant religion'. The customs summarized as Hinduism mostly originated after Christ, with memorized Vedic scripture that goes back to maybe 1500 BC. This puts Vedic religion (clearly polytheistic) among the oldest attested (but not extant; or, ok, extant in very remote areas, as described by Frits Staal) religions, a couple centuries older than Judaism.
 * regards, dab 17:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We don't agree regarding the distinction of "vedic" and "hinduism" religions, nor about the status of vedic religions as polytheistic (the lesser gods are more like "angels" or "djinn" from other religions). Hinduism is a misnomer, the proper name is "sanatana dharma", and it has been existant for at least 4000 yrs (I would argue much longer, but I don't need to here, as w other spurious debates listed above ;). Sam [Spade] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hinduism is not a misnomer if used properly. It is a collective term for 'native Indian religions'. "sanatana dharma" is simply Sanskrit for, well "Forn Sed". If you use Indian concepts of history, all our attempts to reach consensus on any date will be doomed. You may of course define Hinduism to include all religions of the past 4000 years, but by this you gain nothing. 4000 years ago, the Aryans were hardly even in India, the Rigveda and comparative studies give us a glimpse of what they believed. They were polytheists if there ever was polytheism (yes, the lower gods were 'like angels', but there is no 'higher' God)! I do mention the earliest occurrence of remotely polytheistic concepts in that culture, so I really don't know what you are missing. dab 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem to disregard Brahman as being God. I find this a POV which unfortunately permeates the article. Sam [Spade] 20:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The early Chinese worship of Shang Ti could be viewed as either monotheistic or henotheistic, as well. Wesley 18:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * brilliant! by all means include! perfectly fits the 1000 BC timeline... dab 18:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam, I don't want to harry you here, but you are on a campaign of edit first, ask questions later, here. If you are so very sceptical of historical accounts to doubt the recent emergence of monotheism, how can you turn around and portray customs of the *paleolithic* as well-understood?? All we have of the paleolithic are objects. Archaelolgical finds. We have figurines, but we have *not the slightest idea* if they are at all connected with a concept of god. We simply don't know. At most, we can infer that people believed in an afterlife (judging from burials), and to surmise that there was *some* form of worship, most likely ancestor worship. Even with the 'possibly', the statement was bold. dab 18:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * They buried people, made supernatural representations in art, and carved lots of fat ladies and horned men. That tells me (and every expert I've ever heard from) they had religion. But this isn't an important debate here, as with many others I mentioned, this discussion isn't vital to the article at hand, God. Sam [Spade] 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I should say so. The point is that you changed 'polytheism possibly goes back to the paleolithic' to ''polytheism goes back to the paleolithic', thus making a statement both about gods and about the paleolithic religions. You seem to continue to imply that religion implies God, which may be at the base of most of the disagreements on this page. dab 20:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm, well I at lest ment that relgion assumes the supernatural, esp. when that religion involves giant fat ladies and guys w deer antlers and hooves. Sam [Spade] 20:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * we have no disagreement about the supernatural. If this was about Spirituality I would have you say that it was present at least since homo erectus without any qualifier. Unfortunately, this is a article is about gods, and we do not know how early this became a concept independent from spirit. dab 08:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually the article is about God, and references to early spirituality are as useful as references to polytheism, gods, atheism, or what-have-you. Sam [Spade] 16:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * no. this article is also about the difference between "god" and "God", necessary to the definition what "God" is about in the first place. Therefore polytheistic gods are necessarily mentioned. This article should not list the whole zoo of gods, for this we have deity, but the concept necessarily appears. dab 11:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)