Talk:God

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(There is no god so why talk about it?)
(There is no god so why talk about it?)
Line 147: Line 147:
 
I mean, c'mon, do we talk about every imaginary friend invented by a human child? Well, technically you have an article about imaginary friends, but wouldn't your time be better spent raising money for Obama's reelection (OBAMA!!!!) and digging up juicy tidbits about Andy Schlafly and his Conservapedia empire?
 
I mean, c'mon, do we talk about every imaginary friend invented by a human child? Well, technically you have an article about imaginary friends, but wouldn't your time be better spent raising money for Obama's reelection (OBAMA!!!!) and digging up juicy tidbits about Andy Schlafly and his Conservapedia empire?
 
:First, you get everyone to deny god, ''then'' you get them to vote for Obama. Then you get the ''power...'' [[User:Occasionaluse|Occasionaluse]] ([[User talk:Occasionaluse|talk]]) 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:First, you get everyone to deny god, ''then'' you get them to vote for Obama. Then you get the ''power...'' [[User:Occasionaluse|Occasionaluse]] ([[User talk:Occasionaluse|talk]]) 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 +
::Er, wouldn't ''your'' time be better spent doing that rather than blanking articles? [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:42, 21 July 2011

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Contents

untitled

we could run a statistical review of god. eg. how many monotheists, polytheists and atheists/agnostics are there. then by simple mean/standard deviation we could give a global view of god...Airdish 06:12, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

...for non-adherents, by definition, they have chosen not to believe...

This is actually a particular form of atheism (theoretical vs pragmatic). When we get atheism up and running, we can flush this out.--PalMD-Talk 06:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

No I don't believe it is. When I wrote this, I had in mind the fact that some people believe, for example, that Jesus is God (Christians), whereas others (e.g Muslims) would deny his divine nature. The divinity or not, is therfore a matter of belief not argument. It cannot be proven one way or the other, and debate always reduces to the level of "because it is so", or "It says so in such and such a revealed text", rather than being based on any rational argument. In other words, it is pointless attempting to have a logical argument about such things. --CatWatcher 18:13, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I guess the point is that we are all, in one way or another, atheists. Few people alive today believe in the divinity of or worship Thor or Zeus. However, my understanding of the term is that an Atheist believes that there are no gods at all, and never have been. Being a christian who denies the divinity of Krishna (for example) is different than being an atheist; it is simply being a member of the faithful and expressing the essence of christian faith.Zoose
Quite a few people actively worship Thor, actually. Zeus isn't nearly as fashionable, though. Although folks like Kali have been doing well. --Kels 14:44, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
There are also some of us that believe that any former divinity retains some power, on some level. Researcher 19:01, 25 December 2007 (EST)

God with a capital G or god with a lower case g?

Which is this article about? Below is the definition from MW. 1 a is capitalized according to MW, 1 b may be capitalized, though I don't know if the the capitalized applies to the Christian Science definition. HeartGold tx 02:23, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit  : infinite Mind

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically  : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value

4 : a powerful ruler


This is a good question. When I wrote this initally, it was a general article about gods, religion and beliefs, but inevitably when we stray into monotheism, it turns into God. I suspect it needs tidying up to make the distinction. User:CatWatcher, forgetting to log on.--88.106.146.170 02:51, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
If you're referring to a specific god, then I'd say capitalize, since it's used either as a proper name or a title. But if you're talking about gods in general, then lowercase is fine. That, and the Abrahamic God is traditionally capitalized anyhow. --Kels 06:41, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I just fed her some tasty fresh oats, and asked out of curiosity. She does not mind either way. PBUH humanbe in 11:52, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Work

I decided to do a little work here. If you hate it, revert. Thanks. --PalMD-yada yada 22:00, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm impressed. Nice work. Luckily, before I went on my wandalism/meanness spree, I started an article that desperately needs the sort of help you have been providing to this one. Have a warm goat on me... humanbe in 22:27, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

i learned something from tis artical

i never knewthat God looks remarkably like an elderly Italian man StupidIdiot 02:22, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

That's a common misunderstanding. Actually, God is a giant hand in the sky, who usually communicates through hand puppets. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:45, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Nononononononno! GOD is a giant American Flag in the sky, that swoops down on anyone that threatens American oligarchy or multi-national corporate interests and blows them up! GOD sukzorz! humanUser talk:Human 21:02, 9 November 2007 (EST)
GOD SMASH!!! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:29, 10 November 2007 (EST)

God is black, and, damn, is She ever pissed! ;-) PlantB 00:08, 10 March 2008 (EST)

NO!!!! God is a Turtle with indigestion!! Stephen King told me so!!! --"Skeptical Moonbat is Skeptical" 13:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

God hates his son

Eviluserlist.PNG--Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 15:55, 9 December 2007 (EST)

lawl

That god faq is garbage. Also i removed the other link because it has nothing to do with anything --65.185.175.69 15:15, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, we specialise in garbage here. So, maybe talk before removing garbage that we WANT there? Thanks. CЯacke® 15:28, 25 December 2007 (EST)

OK, that is NOT the offical god faq at all, that is atheist propaganda. --65.185.175.69 15:36, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Okay, where is the official God FAQ? Please provide a valid" cite. CЯacke®

I'd say that, outside of the folks what made Her up in the first place, this FAQ has every bit as much right to call itself "official" as anyone else who talks about God. --Kels 15:38, 25 December 2007 (EST)

There is no offical god faq at all, but if there was it would not be an atheist propaganda website like the one that the link goes to. --65.185.175.69 16:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

I think IP's right here (although you shouldn't edit other people's comments). Something's not official unless the originating group has endorsed it. Otherwise, I could claim to be the official spokesman for, say, Andrew Schlafly, because the positions not already taken. And that would be deceitful. --82.44.64.173

I changed it to "self-styled". Everybody happy? :-)--Bobbing up 16:54, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Not that I really mind having it there, I'm just having a little difficulty seeing what, exactly, it actually adds to the article? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:29, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Just to clear things up

I do exist. --THE LORD GOD SistineGod.jpgPray 17:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

But do you intervene? Do miracles and shit? Design people? Sterilexx 17:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Well, if he's God, then he probably doesn't shit, Sterile  :-) --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:53, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Only if it's an incorporeal dragon god... Sterilexx 17:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Even He has a blog!--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 18:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

There's nothing about shitting in the blog. Maybe he intelligently designed shit, though. Sterilexx 18:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)
That's some really good shit, man. [cough] humanUser talk:Human 18:34, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Copied from archive 1 (which needs deleting?)

Could we be more rational? how is it not rational to believe in god? How is it not irrational to not believe in god? Ifind this page to be rather biased, and to be showing the kind of arrorgance one finds on the very site you claim to abhor Conservapedia. (above is anonymous edit by 68.115.82.239)

Well ok, state some empirical evidence for God and we shall consider it.--DamoHi 20:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Come on BoN, please respond, you state it is irrational to disbelieve in God, therefore I ask you to provide some evidence for Him existing. It is almost the definition of rationality to only believe in things for which there is evidence. It is irrational to believe in things for which there is no evidence. So lets hear your evidence, so we can see if belief is rational or irrational.--DamoHi 21:03, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
Haven't we been over this like more than 9000 million times already? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 06:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't want to get dragged into a long and fruitless argument but isn't it irrational to hold any beliefs that have no evidence, including "god doesn't exist". I think, "there is no evidence for statement P, therefore we believe the converse" is a logical falacy. Shouldn't the opinion of the article be that we can hold no rational (empirical) opinion about the existence of god? Don't get me wrong, I found it amusing, especially the bit at the top about the fictional character but if you wish rationalwiki to be taken more seriously, perhaps we should take this article more seriously. By some basic theology, a monotheistic god (possily Abrahamic) that values faith has made his existence unprovable, therefore evidence of his existence will come on a personal level, explaining why there is no empirical evidence for him. Also note that a supernatural being is exempt from empirical evidence by definition and god may also be beyond logic, making him untouchable with philosophy either. Finally, before you say it, god is not comparable with the tooth fairy or santa. — Unsigned, by: 192.112.46.6 / talk / contribs

I skimmed the article and found no direct claim that god doesn't exist. Of course it's critical of the concept of god and it has a lot of snark, but I wouldn't expect anything less from this site. -- Nx talk 16:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Fair enough

Panentheism

I reworded the definition of Panentheism to be one that is found more often in google type searches. If you want to revert, that's cool, but I'd appreciate a cite, since the definition you provided is not one I heard in school (but that was, admittedly, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.) I used the definition from ReligiousTollerance, for what it's worth.— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs

I was going with the Bishop Berkeley-esque version that I was taught at school, actually. To be honest, I think they're both sides of the same coin - while God-in-everything and everything-in-God (pan-en-theism, as our tutor taught it) seem different, you get similar results. --InterpretedThe stupid evil bastard hath said in his heart, 'there is no 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube'.

Outside of time

Just out of curiosity, but does anyone know much about where this "God exists outside of time" business that Philip's always on about at aSK actually came from? It seems obviously to be philosophic hand-waving in order to dodge criticism, but the pseudo-intellectual Creatards love it. --Kels (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he takes it as an obvious conclusion from the 'fact' that it created time and therefore couldn't have been subject to it? This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 19:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, why Philip uses it is easy, it allows him to weasel out of any inconvenient questions about free will and prophesy. But I was more interested in where it entered the discussion in the first place, historically speaking. --Kels (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Crap Einstein quotes

These:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. — Albert Einstein
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. — Albert Einstein

Seem really pointless to me, and utterly ruin the brief series of humourous quotes in the physicists on god/god on physicists sections. Can we just get rid of them? (And the one about god not being malicious, or whatever it is?) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BON trying to improve by moving sentence and giving up

I rolled back their "work", since essentially they deleted a sentence from the lead. But I think they were headed in the right direction, perhaps? See the last four or so diffs... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Very few Gods are actually "mutually exclusive;" most forms of paganism are quite compatible. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It's mostly YHWH who is jealous and incompatible with other gods. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really doesn't the the original Hebrew talk about the gods as plurals and YHWH as the lord god, later treating him as the only one? - π 05:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
True that, YHWH mostly wants to be #1, not the "only" (see, Moses, The Ten Commandments). Gods arguing amongst themselves was always one of the best parts of studying mythology. Too bad the YHWHists get their panties in such a bunch about "their" special god. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There is something about "nephilim" in the very earth mythology. That might lead to the idea of multiple Gods in Jedeo-Christianity. So YHWH either is the head or wants to be the head by creating the universe and showing off. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 09:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK< so I'm no biblical scholar (why study fairy tales) but isn't commandment #1 "You shall have no other gods before me" as opposed to "There are no other gods but me." This implies that (s)he is not necessarily the only god, merely the #1 god. Bob Soles 10:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge you're right. I think the OT treats Baal very much as if it was a real entity that could be worshiped rather than "oh, Baal is just make believe, YHWH is real though". Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins

I'm with Armond on wondering why a single quote should have a main header. I know Dawkins is an interesting public figure as both scientist and writer of popular screeds, but still, the quote with header effect is far too hero-worshippy for me. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Quotes" section, with a few more, might be the solution? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we can change the "Physicists on God" part around a bit to just be quotes by anyone? Tetronian you're clueless 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Only trouble with that (?) is that the PoG and Gop sections are a several part joke. How about following them with "Other people on God"? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That could work. I'm sure we can find other good quotes about God. Tetronian you're clueless 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

God and the 'puritans' etc

God created the world and saw that it was good (which can presumably be extended to 'the universe in general')

  1. Therefore anyone who denounces enjoying life in the name of religion are being blasphemous.

God created humans in his/her/other genders'image

  1. Therefore racism, genderism and related isms by those of a religous nature is also blasphemous.

Useful counterargument against such proponents. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Han vs. God

Noting here that the statement made about belief in God/spirits in China I made is sourceable, although I have no intention of supplying same. For the rate in the U.S. you will find recent Gallup polling data (e.g 2005) that attests to 92% and you can also source 93% non belief in China. Having broken myself of Wikipedia, don't plan to startup in a small time venue like this. There are of course many complications, for example Gallup finds what when American believers are given a choice between an indistinct "something" (life force, universal spirit, etc.) they choose that overwhelmingly instead of God, there are traditional superstitions which persist among the poorly educated and isolated in China (which still don't add up to "God"), etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"... don't plan to startup in a small time venue like this." why bother then? If you're not up to backing up claims, don't make them. Pippa (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
To the extent that I am going to, I just did. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no god so why talk about it?

I mean, c'mon, do we talk about every imaginary friend invented by a human child? Well, technically you have an article about imaginary friends, but wouldn't your time be better spent raising money for Obama's reelection (OBAMA!!!!) and digging up juicy tidbits about Andy Schlafly and his Conservapedia empire?

First, you get everyone to deny god, then you get them to vote for Obama. Then you get the power... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Er, wouldn't your time be better spent doing that rather than blanking articles? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support