Talk:List of gods that theists don't believe in/Archive1

Can't
I can't do it but you should replace "Yaweh" with the Hebrew Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei. 22:56, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Utterly Pointless
This whole argument is complete nonsense. I only live in one house. Does that mean I'm nearly homeless? 18:41, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


 * You're missing the point, my friend. Certain Christians are adamant that their belief in God is the one and only correct belief, but, for much the same reasons that atheists do not believe in the list of gods on the right, these Christians don't believe in the list of gods on the left, yet utterly fail to see the contradiction when they call atheists 'evil', 'misguided', say that they're going to Hell, or anything else of a negative nature. Zmidponk 19:39, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Gods and religions are not interchangable, and the idea of some Christians seeing alternate viewpoints as misguided is a completely different issue. 19:58, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I only drive 3 or 4 vehicles, and I am almost rideless, so, yes. If one has 6 or 7 houses, one is far from homeless.  With only one house, one is a fire or eviction or foreclosure away from homelessness.  ħ uman  21:42, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * A more accurate comparison might be "you're only married to one person, therefore you're only one step away from being single". It just doesn't work. The whole quantifying thing misses the point completely. 21:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Ironically, I can counter that, too. If I am only sleeping with one person, I am one step away from accidental celibacy.  If I am sleeping with three or four, one of them going away is less of a problem. I think the Dawkins quote up front might clarify this thing a bit.  Also, we need a shoutout to wherever someone found it, I think?  ħ uman  21:53, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * No, the point was being attached to someone you love. 21:54, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, then substitute love for sex in my example. I would suspect it would be very rare for anyone to only have one person they love that they are attached to though.  In that case, they would, of course, be one loss away from complete lovelessness.  ħ uman  22:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * "Substitute love for sex"??? I don't even know where to begin with that. Are you seriously suggesting that a perfectly sincere believer would believe in every single religion possible? You must see that this makes no sense. 22:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm afraid "substituting love for sex" is one of the dangers of a long marriage. ("I don't have a sexual partner, I'm a married man!" - Alas Smith & Jones) :(  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis    23:08, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I believe in every god on this list equally, yah. No problem.  And I meant substituting the words love for sex, of course, although my unclarity added to the hilarity of this discussion, luckily. Jellyblob, I completely fail to see the sequitur in your comment.  Please clarify?  And, answer my point about loving "people".  Is marriage somehow exactly equal to love (meaning "is and only is")?  Do not parents love their chilluns, friends love friends (etc., etc.)?   ħ uman  00:30, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Simple answer: no.
 * Dawkins' argument, unless I'm missing some hidden meaning, was that theists are "nearly" atheists because the number of Gods they don't believe in is almost identical to the atheist's -- why not go one step further? This is a misleading way of looking at the situation because religious belief systems are all unique. The fact that any given person only subscribes to one of them is completely irrelevant, and nonsensical as an argument. It implies that the pinacle of religious belief (not atheism) would be believing whole-heartedly in every single religion. 10:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Indeed. I guess this is rather clever on a certain level, if a little unoriginal, but the major flaw is that if a Christian actually believed in all those deities, he or she wouldn't be a Christian in the first place. Bit of Catch-22, maybe? -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 10:38, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think it's to say Christians (say) are "almost" atheists. It's that they actually are atheists regarding every god but one (or three?).  It's probably a response, in part, to the way some religious people think atheists are specifically not believing in their god.  By that logic, someone who believes in one or a few gods is an atheist to someone who believes in another god or gods.  ħ uman  15:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Probably. Tangentially, I'm surprised how many people seem to think that bullshit is an effective counter to other bullshit, but I guess that's what you get when you have a natural scientist running around thinking he's qualified to speak authoritatively on sociology of religion. -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 15:37, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * This ^^^^
 * I hope I did that right. 13:58, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

As I understood his point, it was that Xtians consider all other beliefs irrational, yet are incredulous when others consider their beliefs irrational. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 12:49, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, but the same is true of atheists. 12:56, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What positive claim are we making that we should be less credulous about? 12:57, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Atheism asserts that there is no God, when all we can really conclude is that there is no evidence of His existence. And please ban Jezuz 3 while you're stopping by. Look at RC, at least. 13:13, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I have another way of phrasing this - the definition of "atheist" is someone who does not believe in any God. You cannot be "almost" atheist if you only believe in one deity - you are either atheist or you're not. 88.144.2.244 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure
Wouldn't it be better if the "section breaks" in the table were between lettres d'alphabetrix? Also, the last one doesn't line up right, and Yahweh is not in alpha-order.  ħ uman  21:41, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Done and done.  ħ uman  00:25, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, should this be opened with the Dawkins "one more" quote, to give the innocent reader some context?  ħ uman  21:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Done  ħ uman  15:28, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Addition
I'm afraid to say, if you were to list all the things Christians believed (religious) alongside those of atheists, the discrepancies would be huge. ;) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think the renaming addressed that well.  ħ uman  00:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Isn't the juxtaposition of "Atheist" and "Gods" a little aahh ... errr... well.. ? 00:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Er, um, yeah, maybe. Although it does list some they don't believe in?  (And it's not even an exhaustive list by any means...)  ħ uman  00:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
 * G r e a t,,, now it looks like I answered you before you asked. Hey, Big Jim R, where's my cool mill?  ħ uman  00:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Ogoun and other loa...
One could make a strong case that at least some Christians do believe in Ogoun, and Legba, and Samedi, etc. Many Haitians consider themselves good Catholics, after all... Researcher 13:20, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Similarly in Brazil, where Santeria, Kardecismo etc are popular but somehow don't get onto the census figures. Probably a case of "Catholic in name only" for many people. Totnesmartin 13:37, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Would other Christians recognise them as Christians? But that takes into sticky territory. Is a Christian somebody who self-identifies themselves as Christian, or somebody other Christians would consider Christian? If we go for the latter, how would we identify the "other Christians" who do the deciding in the first place?--Bobbing up 13:40, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * They probably wouldn't seeing as the Cathlics and Protestnt churches are barely on speaking terms, and many Protestants done even recognise Catholicism as Christianity. So dragging in Yemanya or whoever won't go down well on a Sunday morning. Totnesmartin 13:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, someone was trying to tell me that they weren't the same religion. What the hell is up with that? Anyway, it doesn't matter much if other Christians recognise them as such as you'll probably run into the "True Scotsman" thing.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 13:51, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Jesus/Holy spirit?
Do Christians believe those 2 are alternative forms of God (the concept of trinity is making things really difficult to count)? Thieh 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so - they believe there is one God, which just happens to have three parts. It's a mystery, see?  03:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Athiest Maybe ?
Can we have a maybe category for Marduk, Enlil and Enki just till after 2012 ? Hamster (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fun
The Dawkins quote at the top of here is a neat bit of rhetoric but obviously doesn't stand up to scrutiny as a serious argument. So perhaps the page should be Fun:Christian gods vs. atheist gods?-- 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way do feel it's wrong?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It implies that Christians are being arbitrary in treating the Christian God differently from other gods. But:
 * although both are referred to by the same word, the Christian God is clearly a different kind of being from, say, the Norse gods
 * Christian belief isn't arrived at by selecting from a list of gods - it's part of a particular cultural tradition; many of the gods on the list aren't part of an equivalent live tradition, so why would anyone believe in them?
 * many Christians would argue that gods of other cultures derive from God making Himself partly known to the peoples of those cultures, rather than people simply making them up
 * many Christians would consider that some of the gods listed, particularly Baal and others from that region, aren't gods but do in fact exist; that they are evil spirits or similar.
 * Also see the valid arguments higher up this talk page, especially that being a Christian actually precludes belief in other gods, and that belief in god(s) is a qualitative not quantitative view, so believing in only one doesn't make you any nearer to being an atheist than believing in the entire pantheon.
 * I'm sure RiDaw himself would agree that it's a neat joke rather than a serious argument. So: Fun?-- 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the word "Christian" in Dawkins' argument?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the argument in Dawkins's joke?-- 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that all of your objections to the Dawkins quote refer to Christianity - which is not mentioned in the quote.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Christians are the most significant subset of the people RD is referring to, because there are the most of them and because he spends more time sniping at them than other religions. Plus I know most about Christianity, so I can make better-informed (and less presumptuous) objections by referring to it.
 * Also, er, the page is entitled "Christian gods vs atheist gods" and the extra god listed is Yahweh. Are you arguing that the page should be refocused to cover all other religions?-- 17:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your original objection to the article was - as I understood it - the Dawkins quote. It obviously refers to theism in general. Are you switching your objection to the article doesn't match the quote?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your position. I have shown that the quote doesn't work as a serious argument as applied to Christianity. Therefore this article, which applies the quote to Christianity, should not be presented as serious. It should be in Fun. Although it is feeling less and less like fun the longer this discussion goes on.-- 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Title
I love this list (totally sharing on facebook), as it asserts a major point (and gives number to Dawkins' famous statement) about atheism. However, the title is atrocious--what's an "atheist god"? I think a more appropriate title would be something like Gods Christians don't believe in or something similar (I'm loathe to call out any particular theistic group, as it seems like we could have a near-identical list in Gods Muslims don't believe in...but the line probably has to be drawn somewhere). -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete
I don't see how this article furthers the mission, or how it's even an intelligent point.

Delete

 * 1) -- "Shut up, Brx." 03:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) What is the point of this article, besides 'ooh ooh I got one, ooh I got another one'. Its not so much a list of gods that christians don't believe in, its just a list of gods. Its a crap joke and any point it makes can be made with one short sentence. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This article is stupid because if I had one cake and casually dismissed other foods offhand then I would still have more flavour than 3000 lettuces. It's like if you had two cars and someone else had one, but they couldn't have their car and eat it. Minoreditor (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

keep

 * 1) That's because you're stupid. --Benod (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oh god Brxbrx, the most useless net negative editor we've had, is talking about the mission. Shoot me in the head. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I think it makes a good point.  06:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The list could be pruned or can wiki software do something to make it expand if clicked? A bit more text around he concept would be nice.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) *pruning the list makes even less sense than expandinding the list or deleting the whole thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) There should probably be a lead paragraph discussing the implications or its legitimacy as an argument, but the list as a whole is useful as it shows just how large of a world a Christian is denying. If you're a Christian and don't know much about other religions, seeing this list can be an eye-opener.  99% of the list also applies to most religions, so it can serve the same purpose.  76.106.251.87 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Funspace

 * 1) I'd rather Funspace it than delete it; if I only because I'm having a blast adding all the deities it doesn't yet have (a mythology buff, is I). Plus, as others above have said, it demonstrates the stupidity of Christians arbitrarily holding their own God in special regard for no logical reason. --Faztzander (talk) 03:68, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) *I suspect that the fact that you've expanded the thing so much is what has brought it up for deletion. Such is the law of unintended consequences. If I were you I'd vote for keep though.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) the actual article is sorta lacking, given its just a incredibly long list, but would be good for funspace-- Mikal |  lakiM  05:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Funspace is good. Too listy and too lacking in actual juicy commentary for mainspace, but still good enough to be worth keeping.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  09:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems a bit more funspace-worthy to me. The purpose of it is vague at best, and having it in the mainspace sets the possibility of somebody making one for every other damn religion, too. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)