Jump to content

Talk:God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Improv (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 3 January 2006 (→Removed neurology section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

archives

Dispute Regarding Kabbalistic Definiton of God

I edited my remarks and inserted them into the text of the article.

Mobius1ski 23:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immanent v. Imminent

In the definition section the former was changed to the latter. God may be imminent (in which case get down on your knees and pray), but immanent is the correct term here ie. pervading the universe.--shtove 11:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think he's both, but I agree with your assessment. Sam Spade 12:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God section

Anonymous user 82.10.40.207 posted some potentially inflammatory stuff, which I reverted, and suggested that we discuss here before agreeing to add to the article. The edits include:

Different names for God exist within different religious traditions, like Berber Amon and Egyptian Ra, the original fathers of monotheism...
The name Allah was derived from the Arabic Sun-Goddess Allat, who in turn was a form of the Semitic Al or El or Allilat, who in turn was a form of the African-Berber Tala, taken into Latin as Latona...

I just thought the community should discuss these additions before agreeing to include them. KHM03 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree to include them - particularly as, lacking a source, and mostly containing conjectural notions I've never seen before, they look an awful lot like "Original Research"... Codex Sinaiticus 20:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on Buddhism because, Sakyamuni, is not god, anyone who vaguely familiar with the teachings would know that, also life is not considered evil, this is not what buddhism is about. Buddhism does not even have the concept of evil in it's original pali language.

Similar edits were added by Anonymous user 82.68.147.102, then deleted. I'm hoping this editor (whom I assume to be the same as 82.10.40.207) will discuss the issue here. Both anonymous users have been invited. KHM03 16:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is valid to includ the Tolkien reference here, see the article on Eru Ilúvatar. --Fnord

Some time ago I added that the Quakers traditionally alternately referred to God as 'The Light' or 'The Light Within.' This reference was deleted, and I wonder whether it is appropriate to this section?

Falsum?

I encountered the word falsum in the definition section; from the context it means contradiction, but I can't seem to find an actual definition, and it seemed jarring. Should this be changed to contradiction or a synonym of it? Gururvishnu 03:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falsum is appropriate. See falsum --172.195.191.202 18:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Barely appropriate. If it's not in the OED or any of the dictionaries that dictionary.com searches, it probably shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia without explanation; how would the reader be expected to figure out what it means? It's certainly not an English word, in any case. I italicised it, as per the WP:MOS, and linked to that very informative page you cited. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian

surely the lengthy Rosicrucian account should be delegated to some sub-article? Baad 07:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God In Motion Pictures

This section has no depth or value, and little relevance to this section. This belongs under an article for that movie. I'm going to remove this section unless there are any objections. Ario 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this page be split up into God (Christian deity) and so on...

--207.142.131.239 09:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin

I don't see how the Carlin quote fits in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it serves no purpose other than to deride the idea of God. It's not really a philosophy or a real description of any God-like figure that isn't already covered, as far as I can see. Though, like I said, I might be wrong.

--Masterzora 01:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the George Carlin quote because, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it exemplifies a popular view of God, agree or not, that Carlin has expressed with uncanny succinctness. The view does deride the idea of God, of course, but that is not the purpose of including it here, and is not a valid reason to remove it. Though, like I said, I might be wrong. --Serge 06:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concer with Serge's inclusion of the George Carlin quote. I would also have no problems with quoting Bill Hicks at appropriate points in the theological discussion. Anville 11:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the point is valid, but I'm sure that there are more serious and less inflammatory instances where it has been made. What about Marx' "the opium of the people"? The original 18th century freethinkers? Voltaire? dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any decent treatment would do both, I think. Writing "Voltaire said thus-and-so" and then stopping leaves the impression that the issue is old, dusty and irrelevant. It might be best to give a direct quotation for the oldest (i.e., the most "venerable") sources and then paraphrase the more recent ones, but to do the topic justice, we should point out that the question keeps getting asked. Anville 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what? so a statement in your view has merit due to recency? Much to the contrary, I would say. Anybody can get his blathering published today. If somebody said something in AD 400 and his words have come down to us, you can trust that they have some weight. I'll consult dusty old Saint Augustine in matters of theology before Carlin or other comedians, bloggers or media pundits any day, thank you :) dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed (and reverted) a deletion of the issue being discussed here,

  • Comedian-philosopher George Carlin has summed up a popular conception of God as follows: "Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's ten things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ... And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!"

by 208.37.97.71 on Nov 16 15:14. Like I said, I added it back. Obviously, I'm biased (I put it in originally), but, honestly, I don't see a strong argument to take it out, and stronger arguments to leave it in. In any case, I think it's fair to ask for the establishment of more of a consensus in order to take it out. --Serge 02:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Stronger arguments"? How about, "because many people find it blasphemous and offensive"...? Of course, I do realize that's the whole reason you put it in there, because you want it to be offensive... While 9 out of 10 human beings go out of their way not to be offensive, there's always just gotta be that other 1, who goes out of his way to be offensive to the other 9... It's just a fact everyone learns to live with, I guess... ፈቃደ 02:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there might be a middle ground? Those who strive to not be offensive, those who strive to be offensive, and those who are willing to make points even though doing so might be offensive? This is starting to smell like PC policing. It's one thing to not allow Carlin's statement because it is intentionally non-PC, it's another to not allow it because it happens to be non-PC. Do you recognize the distinction? I believe that the point is valid, and that there is no PC way to make it. Does that mean it should not be made? Can you think of a way to make the point he makes without being offensive to some? --Serge 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
as I say above, the point is valid, but you should quote theologians or psychologists, not comedians. It's not so much different from what Freud would have said (internalized father figure or whatever), so why not quote Freud? I'm sorry -- I'm not offended by the view at all. I just think the quote in question is rather puerile and unencyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
there are probably better quotes, but until someone comes up with one to replace the Carlin quote, I suggest we keep it in as a place holder. But this does give me an idea about a new section. I'll start a new discussion about that. --Serge 22:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also had the same impression that it doesn't belong herReligion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's ten things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ... And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money. 24.54.208.177 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serge's claim that Texture deleted Carlin

Serge, I just want you to have the correct facts. I did not delete the Carlin quote in God. An anon deleted it and I initially restored it. Upon reflection I reverted my own action. (In effect doing nothing.) Why? Because I had reverted as vandalism and it was really a content dispute. I undid my action to allow discussion and normal editing to continue. - Tεxτurε 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texture, I was going to say "deleted by anon then restored and redeleted by Texture" but decided that was too long. Anyway, thanks for explaining. --Serge 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the topic of the quote.. i don't think we should be afraid to offend people. It's very stifling to live life afraid of offending folk, because doing most things of significance will offend somebody (atheists may be offended by mention of a god or by public calls to faith, devoutly religious folk may be offended by their exclusion). At the same time, derisive quotes are probably a bad road to go down on Wikipedia, because they're soundbites, lack encyclopedic tone, and lack meaningful information. Wikipedia should not be a place to mock. It may be that ample coverage of positions that are skeptical of god or gods is not present in this article, and that should be fixed. However, there are good and bad ways to do that, and the Carlin quote seems to be clearly in the "bad" camp. --Improv 20:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you freely admit that your intention here IS to try and offend people. Not that I hadn't suspected as much. It's just as I noted above, it's not "stifling" for 9 out of 10 of the earth's population to live their life without offending people. But it's always going to be "stifling" for that other 1 in 10, if he can't be offensive to the other 9. ፈቃደ 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate where in my statement that I intend to offend people. I don't have the intent to go out of my way not to, and it may happen as part of something I do, but it is not a goal of mine, and is thus not an intent. Why do you assume ill will? Note also that, as stated above, no matter what you do, you're likely to offend somebody. --Improv 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose it's true that "everything you do will offend somebody" as long as there's people who are going to say they are offended by anything that isn't offensive to veryone else, for instance... But that's where Utilitarianism comes in... My apologies if I misread your remarks, and thanks for changing the disputed part for me... ፈቃደ 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. I'm glad that we got the content into a decent form in an agreeable fashion. --Improv 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the first line

Do we really want the first line of the article to be about proper capitalization? -Arctic.gnome 17:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's odd and out of place in the first line. However, I think it is important to note, somehow, that this article deals specifically with the concept that happens to be denoted by the capital G form of God in English, and not all conceptions of "gods". --Serge 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the first line currently is:

The term God is used to refer to a specific monotheistic concept of a supernatural Supreme Being in accordance with Christianity, and is capitalized in the English language as a proper noun.

Another problem I have with this line is the clause, "in accordance with Christianity". The term God is used in English to refer to non-Christian monotheistic concepts of God as well. I propose something like this instead:

God is the monotheistic concept of a supernatural Supreme Being who is the creator and ruler of the universe, as well as the source of all moral authority. When the term God is capitalized in the English language as a proper noun, it is used to refer to this particular concept.

--Serge 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that improvement! Go for it, ፈቃደ 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I decided to leave off the second sentence because this is covered in detail later in the article. --Serge 00:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allah - name or word?

Would it be correct to say that "Allah" is not the name of the god in the Muslim religion, but rather the Arabic word for "God"?

Totally Inaccurate

This definition is totally inaccurate. I can understand that most people 'believe' that God is the creator of the universe, but it is proven that the word god originates from the word gad, as in Baal Gad. Yahoo and google will return a large sum of pages that agree with this statement, and you can even look into the old versions of the Encylopedia Americana (1945 Edition) under the topic “GOD”:

“GOD (god) Common Teutonic word for personal object of religious worship, formerly applicable to super-human beings of heathen myth; on conversion of Teutonic races to Christianity, term was applied to Supreme Being.”

This means that basically, a Heathen word was taken in by Christianity, and applied to The Creator which is, in fact a very large form of Blasphemy.

I've never found any Scriptures using the term "haShem" to refer to the Creator, yet I know it's in common use among many Messianics and orthodox Yahudim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgiacchetti (talk • contribs)

The etymology for English word God is absolutely correct, and it is linguistically prove to be derived from Indo-European root *gheu, meaning to invoke (a celestial being). And this was applied to the various Teutonic deities. This is no Blasphemy to convert it to the God of Abrahamic religions, because such a case happens in modern India. The Hindu word for a deity, deva, used almost always in the polytheistic sense, is used by Christians in south India to refer to their supreme God in vernaculars. Better words like Ishvara or Parameshvara exist, but they are very rarely used in Kerela. And there is no proof that a so-commonly used English word (attested in Old English) could have come from Hebrew.

Cygnus_hansa 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All good points, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "it is linguistically prove(n) to be derived from Indo-Eurpean root *(*)", because nothing about Proto-Indo-European can be "linguistically proven" - it's completely unattested. If they found an attestation of it, it might be "linguistically proven". (sorry, just one of my pet peeves about people asserting that *PIE is "linguistically proven")...ፈቃደ 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lets say like this, all facts are relatively true, thats what I believe. PIE things are not "proven" things in the sense of natural sciences, but they have much more authenticty than figments of imagination like "god" is derived from a Hebrew word.Cygnus_hansa 19:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God in Hinduism

Ishvara is regarded as only One by all Hindus. Thats why I used the term Ishvara and not god or deity or deva. So I have removed "most". Also, it is true that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense of Abrahamic religions - and is not at all a uniform religion. Furthermore, "Ishvara" is not used a lot by common Hindu people - he is more recognized while dealing with Hindu philosophy. Common people use the term Bhagwan (used in singular). Cygnus_hansa 23:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New section suggestion: Quotes about God

How about adding a section of famous quotes about God? It might be a helpful way to convey all the different perspectives. --Serge 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done this myself but....

There is apparently some rule of law to follow when editing. I leave it up to someone else. Here's the paragraph that needs to be edited.

"Others maintain that God is beyond morality. Not all combinations of attributes 'work'; some can entail a falsum. For example, if God is the Creator, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and the Ultimate Judge, then he created all people, including atheists and pagans, knowing exactly what he was doing and then sends them to Hell. This God cannot also be "good", from the point of view of all humans - just as all humans are not "good" from his point of view."

All that is needed is to place a "That" at the beginning of the second sentence. (For the philosophical reason, not the grammatical... I'm not that fickle.)  :)

you are welcome to make the edit yourself. I don't know if it would salvage the passage, though. In my view, it should be scrapped altogether: It is essay-style, and there is way too much essayish rambling on this article. Keep it short, and attribute statements. All weasle-paragraphs beginning with "others maintain" should be mercilessly cut out until people come forward with proper academic citations. dab (ᛏ) 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange blanking you did in God

(moved from my talk page) the holy ghost. Hello. Did I miss any explanation for the blanking you did here or are you about to write them down now here ? Ther was no edit summary either. Please explain. Gtabary 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a POV theory, new research and is really not noteworthy... People have been coming up with such "research" and "theories" for a long time to try to explain God as a chemical or something, and this is just the flavor of the moment... However, God is not a chemical and while these fads and theories come and go, His Word endures forever... This is an article about the Monotheistic God, not a chemical, and if I don't delete it, trust me, someone else will, because it is objectionable to most people to have some "scientist" suggesting that God is a chemical. ፈቃደ 16:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Codex, your position is a disputed one, and while you may feel strongly that there is a god, word endures, etc, that is not a privileged position and it can hardly be considered an admissible argument on Wikipedia as to the content of a page. I notice you don't blank or remove other described ideas about gods either. I ask you, first why, given your position, have you not removed all descriptions of deities that are not in line with your ideas (consistancy), and second, how can you justify removing the section given acceptable-on-Wikipedia arguments? I would note that the original version of that section was problematic, which is why I rewrote it, but that's entirely different than your argument. I would like to remove the POV-section flag, but let's have this discussion first. --Improv 20:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the word "fact" first, it's not a fact, it's a theory or hypothesis. If any scientists says he's "figured out God", that scientist is lying. If he says he's got facts that "prove" he's right, he's lying. Call it a "theory or hypothesis" instead of a fact and I will remove my dispute tag. My "position" is only that there is a dispute. How can that be disputed? If it's disputed that there's a dispute, that means there's more of a dispute, not less of one, all the more reason to keep the tag. ፈቃደ 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed the tag for you too. --Improv 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the Concept of God

  • god(s) — Polytheistic; Pagan, Idolatry, Myth.
  • God — Monotheistic; Judaeo-Christian-Islamic, Anthropomorphic, Transcendent God.
  • G-D — Monotheistic; Spinoza's Immanent, Indwelling G-D/Nature.

From Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion"; ISBN: 0691006997; 1999; p. 94—Three stages in the Evolution of the Concept of G-D.

But Einstein qualified his statements about the compatibility of religion and science "with reference to the actual content of historical religions." "This qualification," he continued, "has to do with the concept of God." He then mentioned, though more briefly than in his 1930 essay, his theory of the three stages in the evolution of religion and the concept of God and declared that "the main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God."

Yesselman 22:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two World Views

  • 1. God, call it Theistic: monotheistic, anthropomorphic, transcendent God.
  • 2. G-D, call it Spinozistic Theistic: momotheistic, immanent, indwelling G-D.
Between the two, debate is useless. The debaters would be talking past each other. It is as if they were playing different games; one by the rules of checkers and the other by that of chess.
They each hold these different views because of the greater peace-of-mind it brings them (their Religion) and therefore it would be very difficult to talk them out of their viewpoint; they have too big an investment.

The same thing happened when two persons debated 'god(s)' and 'God', millennia ago.

Yesselman 17:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Heindel

I've exported most of the "Rosicrucian" section to The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception. As far as I'm concerned, the entire "Max Heindel" section could be cut from this article, but it was simply insane to dedicate that amount of space to a 1909 esoteric book in a general article on God. The section doesn't make the slightest amount of sense to me either way (but I suppose that's not required if we're talking about God). dab (ᛏ) 16:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the section title to its original "The Rosicrucian conception of God and the scheme of evolution", since it is the correct title (according to the issues presented there) and there are also several articles about related issues linking to it; on the other hand, I've added the link to the related main article "The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception" (where the entire section has been inserted). You have expressed your POV, which is your own POV, not mine and not the POV of a few thousands of individuals, at least throughout the last century.
And, by the way, who knows if it may come to be the POV of millions around as soon as we all start developing ourselves toward a higher degree of consciousness, as expressed in the article as being the way of our real Spiritual evolution (which does not exclude any of our views expressed in the present article "God": all of them may be seen as our attempt, through the times, to understand our relation to higher forms of consciousness from the point of view allowed by our own point of consciousness in the scale of evolution...).
I guess some would prefer the exclusive "scientific" explanation that is now under 6.6.6 section to be the only one available (its their own "religion"), the same way some would prefer this article "God" not to exist at all (along with all articles at Wikipedia related to Spirituality). But, I've already addressed this issue earlier at:
Regards, --GalaazV 07:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
wow, I realize that it must have been your section, since I have similar difficulties parsing your reply; anyway, I didn't want to express any sort of pov, my point is simply that the section was too long (and incomprehensible) for the relatively minor movement it represents. I don't want to argue about the title "The Rosicrucian conception of God and the scheme of evolution" too much; it may be 'correct', but it is also a tad long. Surely there is a title that is both correct and a little bit shorter? How about simple "Rosicrucianism" then? Remember that a title is not a summary. dab (ᛏ) 11:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments, thank you. The title has been changed to a shorter version: "The Rosicrucian conception of God". Please, I would like to read, if possible, your point of view about this change, before redirecting other links. Regards --GalaazV 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) P.S.: I meant above, and the present section here tries to explain it also, that all major views at the article God are valid, yet all incomplete, since - through this perspective - they are conceptions about more evolved states of consciousness addressed to the way individuals as collectivity are able to grasp it through their own stage of consciousness in the scale of evolution, at the times each conception is presented. This gradation goes from what we may call the deepest trance unconsciousness (expressed through the most densest-material state in the Cosmos) to the total awareness of divine omniscience (the most abstract-spiritual state, which has its most sublime expression beyond the Cosmos itself, The Absolute: from Whom unintelligible Chaos the Cosmos, where we dwell, is emanated). It is a slow but dynamic process and conceptions are developed, evolve, at the same time we develop, evolve, ourselves: as was in the past, is in present and will continue to be in the future: it may be seen as our eternal search for Truth and each one of us, whatever his/her present consciousness state or awareness, is also a part - along with many other life waves - of the All evolving. --GalaazV 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean that every physical form we may observe - from the simple mineral rock (dwelling with matter, most crystalized) to our galaxy (dwelling with forces, less crystalized), and beyond, are embodiements of spirit-life entities (grouped or individualized) according to their lower or higher stage of consciousness (with the related capability of intelligence). Man expresses itself - at this point in evolution that we call "vigil state of consciousness" - through what we call "biological-physical" embodiement (with its associated neurobiological processes), which is the best possible according to his present state of consciousness and all indicates that for sure it will be different in future as this state evolves through our own present effort. ;) --GalaazV 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I am happy with the new title, thank you. Section 6.6.6 doesn't claim that God is a neurological construct, btw; it simply claims that you'll be better off, physically, if you have religious faith. A statement that would be confirmed by most theists, I think. It is simply healthy to believe in God, regardless of whether he exists. dab (ᛏ) 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that there are even deeper and closer relations of certain biological "functions" of the physical body/human anatomy (as the neurological processes/nervous systems, the ductless glands, the heart, the ADN structure, the spinal cord and the blood) with the subtle bodies and the individual Spirit "manifestation" of man. :-) There are some serious studies published during last century on this issue, deeper than the superficial analizys presented at the "neurological" section (as eg. Vibrational Medicine by Dr. Richard Gerber, physician, Charwood Medical Group and Medical Degree from Wayne State University School of Medicine, interview: [1], [2]). Thus you may find that those biological functions have a role in the Spiritual-inner development of the individual, and at the same time the way they work is also affected by that same development: all seems to be interconnected. --GalaazV 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

be careful when reverting (the obnoxiously frequent and unimaginative) vandalism -- here, the rollback missed this nonsensical statement (not sure if its vandalism or simple hallucinating) just before. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will be viciously editing this article very soon as it contains much unnecessary linkcruft. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. You have a few hours to one day to discuss this before I start. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just go ahead, people can still re-insert links if they disagree with you. dab (ᛏ) 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cut away! KHM03 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PHEW, it's done. Sure took awhile. Anyway, if you disagree with something, please do not revert all of the changes, just make your small edit and discuss in here. I believe I conformed very closely to the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context during this copy-edit. If you see something that you think needs to linked or re-linked please please search the article and make sure it's not already linked somewhere above. General style guidelines say that you link a term once upon its first occurrence period. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 09:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now I shall go take a day of rest. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great job. Tx * 1012. Good idea. Nice. Love (oops!). Gtabary 11:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. KHM03 12:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neurobiological findings

I originaly suggested this section. The last line was recently rephrased as It has been proposed that science and spirituality could maybe join peacefully here, in saying God is eternal. This is an unaccurate statement, because it was not an outcome of the reasearch. I am not able to suggest a better phrasing, so I prefere to remove it cleanly, in order to avoid incorrect info. Bye. Gtabary 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, (though it probably will - tact was never my thing), but the section on neurobiology and the Deity is very badly written. I suggest you go back to your sources and try to boil them down to a para or two that reads fluently and gets the information across accurately and succinctly. Nevertheless, the idea that the human brain predisposed, for purely biological reasons, to create God, is worth stating. PiCo 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the section is clearly relevant, and it also clearly could bear some improvement; so, please, do improve it! dab (ᛏ) 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is a language problem on that section. Being a non-native, I won't be able to really make it nice. Could one suggest a rewrite here ? Or simply enough edit the section Gtabary 19:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"popular culture"

why do we list hollywood movies, when there is an age old tradition of portraying God in art and literature? (I know, I know, "so fix it" -- I would just like to point out that the hollywood references are tiny tiny trivia in the mighty stream of human culture; please expand to "God in art" or something) dab (ᛏ) 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some blockhead on my account

not my revision! someone else at my house doing it. sorry for the misunderstanding. dang kids nowadays. Aeryka 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic God

Would some of you please take a look at Abrahamic God? This subject seems to be well covered in this article, and Abrahamic God does not seem to be a child article but rather a POV fork. I would prefer someone from the God article take a look. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!?

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A change was made by an anon user:

- he:אל + he:אלוהים

I asked a hebrew speaking friend about this - she said the first is the generic term god, the second is the specific God known to jewish/christian faiths - the connotations are similar to god vs God or god vs The One True God.

This may be considered POV either way, just a heads up, I'm not a hebrew speaker but felt that it would be good to call attention to this for any that are. Triona 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed neurology section

Hey all, I believe you may remember me as the person who rewrote the neurology section to be NPOV and added it back in some time back. In retrospect, I don't think it belongs -- it's off-topic for this article, belonging more to an article on belief than to an article about the monotheistic concept of god. I've therefore removed it again. --Improv 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I suggested initialy the section. FYI some (here) found this section relevent. I keep thinking it is a nice piece of information in this article. Bye. Gtabary 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevance of the section -- the topic of the article is the concept of a monotheistic deity. The findings are about belief in general, and so they really don't fit well with the rest of the article. --Improv 11:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The actual experiment referenced in the section is not only about belief but more importantly about religious belief. So in absolute this is indeed not the best article to drop this section in, but it does bring an interesting information. I see there is a religious belief article redirecting to Religion. Would that information belongs better to this article ? Gtabary 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we ever have an article on Religious Belief (which maybe we should), the general article on Religion is probably the best place for it. --Improv 00:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"most" people?

I think the phrasing of "most people" in the first sentence is a bit POV -- it strongly implies some sort of world consensus that I do not think remotely exists. If you take all the monotheistic religions together, they are just barely more than half the world's population (see Major_world_religions), and I for one know plenty of Christians who are pretty iffy on the God concept.

I would like to change it to "many believe". Comments? bikeable (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would sound more npov if you ask me. Although I'm not sure in what sense these people you speak of would be called "Christians" even by the broadest definition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. I agree that the "Christianity" of such people is questionable, but a lot of folks check off boxes on the census without strong thought about their own beliefs... thanks for the feedback. bikeable (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most people is a pretty easy statement to make, you should look at polls on how many people believe in God. The numbers are much higher than that of church goers, not lower. I am a member of a sizable minority who believe in God and yet "follow" no particular denomination. Sadly atheists often try to enlarge their appearence on paper attempting to claim such "nonreligious" people, but the polls simply don't bear out such inaccuracies. Sam Spade 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God&oldid=33658778"