Talk:Godbotherer

Nice list - Gene Wolfe? Didn't know that. Susan^purr 11:15, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, he converted to Catholicism at one point. There's a fair bit of influence esp. in the New Sun books. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Yes there is when you think about it. Trouble is, I read the text & forget the subtext. Susan^purr 12:05, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, and there's a lot of subtext in Wolfe. Can't even trust the bloody narrators sometimes. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:08, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Tolstoy? Yeah, he mentioned God a lot, but, as far as I recall, The Kingdom of God is Within You is more drawing inspiration from God than saying God'll solve everything. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Whazzat? You're not trying to add nuance here, are you? :suspicious: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:19, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Anti-empiricism

I've only heard the terms godbotherer and godbothering in reference to empiricism. When queried as to why it's impossible to devise an experiment to show the existence of god or the efficacy of prayer, fundamentalists will often refer to any such experiment as "godbothering". They claim that the experiments fail because god doesn't answer such prayers -- as opposed to the alternate conclusion that the experiment was a successful validation of the null hypothesis.

(Of course, this ignores the fact that it would give humans almost complete control over god's actions. By praying and keeping meticulous records, divine intervention could be selectively prevented for any class of observable phenomenon that the experimenter wished.)

Is this definition of godbothering worth adding to the article?

BrineBoy^[NaCl]=0.06M 11:43, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd say yes, if we can find a few examples of people using it that way? ħuman 14:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I looked around a bit, and couldn't find any references to this definition. Makes me wonder how it got in my head in the first place, which is pretty damn annoying. Can I write "damn" here? I sure fucking hope so. BrineBoy^[NaCl]=0.06M 14:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. Semantically, of course, it "makes sense" that a godbotherer would be someone who clogs up god's inbox with trivial requests... and yes, apparently you can say whatever the fuck you want here, as long as you mean it. ħuman 14:38, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I'm not sure I did mean it when I wrote "fuck" earlier. Will I be censured for that? I'm not sure I've ever really meant it. I'm having a crisis of fuck.

Um... anyway. Is there another article that addresses the topic of empirically testing of prayer more directly? That might be a better starting point for exploring this idea. BrineBoy^[NaCl]=0.06M 23:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, we have prayer, but maybe you might want to start a new article? Do you know how to do that? ħuman 23:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Nope. I'd be glad for any advice you can give. I'm not sure if it would be better to do a light-hearted, irreverent article (with good data sources, of course), or a more serious, rigorous one. But the latter might be more suitable for Wikipedia (WP is great, but RW is more the kind of project I'd want to contribute to). BrineBoy^[NaCl]=0.06M 17:59, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the former is better. Do you know how to edit on a wiki yet? If you do, just click on this red link: Empirical testing of prayer and have at it. If you don't know how, click on the link anyway and start typing in the edit box, and click on "save" when you're done. You can always click on the "edit" tab at the top (which you obviously know how to do!) to add more. Other people will help out with formatting and stuff if you have trouble with it. If you don't like the title I created, feel free to change it to make the red link say what you want. ħuman 18:14, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Rather than continuing to spam up this talk page, is there a better medium for discourse about additions to an article? I've got a basic outline for an addition to intercessory prayer, but I'd prefer to run it past someone before just dumping the whole thing into an existing article. BrineBoy^[NaCl]=0.06M 16:38, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Dump it on the talk page there first? Or, put your new version of the article in a "sandbox" (a sandbox would be titled like user:fairchild/sandbox) and link to it from the talk page there? ħuman 21:20, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

the "list"

What is this? No footnotes of any kind (except one), what are we saying? ħuman 00:50, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

That we're too lazy to be entrusted with an open content encyclopedia?WilhelmJunker 11:02, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

could I be added? Orderbel

Why Mozart?

Can you think of any composers before the 20th century who were not religious (publicly: whatever they thought in private is not known)? The church & royalty were important factors in the lives of musicians. So why single out Mozart? Ro Thorpe (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could add Beethoven, Bach et al, but to simply say all composers is too inclusive. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Et al? And where does that end? Too inclusive... However, if your objection is to 'all', then how about 'and other composers before the twentieth century'? That way one can assume an implied 'all' if one wishes. Ro Thorpe (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Or something like "Godbothering was a pretty much a prerequisite if an artist hoped to attract a wealthy patron" or something along those lines? I mean Handel's Messiah is clearly Godbothering, but Beethoven's 5th isn't.--PsyGremlinZungumza! 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a helpful explanation. Ro Thorpe (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Beethoven write any godbothering pieces? Off the top of my head I'm not popping any up. ħuman 23:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Me neither (but then, I am to classical music what the Boston Strangler was to door-to-door salesmen). Ditto Wagner for that matter. Strauss? Bach, Brahms did. Did Mozart? Damn... maybe we need to revisit the list? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 23:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Strauss: good point. The waltzing Strausses only composed dance music, while Richard Strauss is a late romantic, so he doesn't count either. Beethoven, yes, & he had a patron for the Missa Solemnis. Wagner's Parsifal is Holy Grail stuff, so he and Brahms (German Requiem) are the tail-end, I'd say. Ro Thorpe (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one or two pieces a botherer makes. I !vote we drop WAM and add Bach, JS. Also Tchaikovski? All I remember are digital cannons... Handel? Holst? ħuman 00:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

J.S. Bach was right into the Godbothering. Good thing he was also pretty good at the composing and playing - David Gerard (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, JSB is an excellent example. Ro Thorpe (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ring Cycle is about Norse gods, even if it doesn't praise them. CS Miller (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the Norse gods would be too busy quaffing whatever it is they quaff in Valhalla to be bothered by a godbotherer. --PsyGremlinSermā! 08:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel flattered

As a christian I feel flattered by this list. Most of the people there were great people, highly admired by christians and non-chritians alike. I mean, no Dobson/Falwell/Jack Chick/Pat Robertson here.^{— Unsigned, by: Ahasverocol / talk / contribs}

Ah, but have you read the 'Why Mozart?' section above? Ro Thorpe (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And Ahasverocol, this list isn't taking the piss out of Christians by and large, just a particular type. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The list (revisited)

I don't think i get what we are trying to do with these lists. There is nothing informative in them, as pretty much you've just said everyone who is a christian, a christina theologian, or a chirstian preacher. We really should be choosing people who are definitive of such a term. (not that i really think that term is useful or anything). or if it's just a word, and not really descriptive of any particular christians, we should dump the list.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Defining the term

There are people who 'are religious/ethical according to a system/pray a lot/act creatively because it serves their faith' who could not be described as Godbotherers. Godbotherers are those people who think they can do a better job than God in spotting people who should be 'dealt with', trivial things that should be put at the top of God's to do list, and who stand on street corners telling you that you are doomed unless you renounce sin (rather than actually 'doing things'). They are the Godbotherers. Given the amount of time they spend on such matters they are probably also Satanbotherers (noting all the sins people do). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never used the term. I just googled to clean up the language a bit. If that's truly what you think the term is, please change it, and maybe make the list of god botherers to reflect said changes?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for balance

A list of Satanbotherers (whether or not including Aleister Crowley). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)