Talk:God

From RationalWiki

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)

Contents 1 God with a capital G or god with a lower case g? 2 Work 3 i learned something from tis artical 4 God hates his son 5 lawl 6 Just to clear things up 7 Copied from archive 1 (which needs deleting?) 8 Panentheism

[edit] 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. Heart♥Gold ^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 human^{be in} 11:52, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

[edit] 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... human^{be in} 22:27, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

[edit] 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. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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! human ^{be in} 21:02, 9 November 2007 (EST)

GOD SMASH!!! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:29, 10 November 2007 (EST)

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

[edit] God hates his son

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

[edit] 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? :-)--Bob^{bing 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? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:29, 25 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Just to clear things up

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

But do you intervene? Do miracles and shit? Design people? Sterile^xx 17:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, if he's God, then he probably doesn't shit, Sterile  :-) --_Essayist RA ^Talk __Fruitcake! 17:53, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Only if it's an incorporeal dragon god... Sterile^xx 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. Sterile^xx 18:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

That's some really good shit, man. [cough] human ^{be in} 18:34, 23 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] 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.--Damo^Hi 21:03, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Haven't we been over this like more than 9000 million times already? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] 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. --Interpreted^{The stupid evil bastard hath said in his heart, 'there is no 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube'.}