Talk:God/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about God. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

non-believers

I removed fragment about number of non-belivers from this article. Data at adherence.com regarding number of non-belivers seems to be in major conflict with the CIA World Factbook, cf. [1] with [2], when CIA World Factbook states that there are 39,8% of Atheists in the Czech Republic. Due to conflicting sources (and I believe, an attempt to minimalize non-belivers significance) I remove that data completely. I also removed an obvious NPOV sentence. Przepla 13:34, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this obviously biased "data". Many reliable surveys show that the number of atheists, agnostics and freethinkers is much higher than what that person claimed. When we add atheists, agnostics and freethinkers together, we find that a very large percent of people in the Western world find the concept of God useless or meaningless. I understand that religious fundamentalists don't like this, but they can't make these people disappear by foolishly writing them out of existence. What's next? Actually exterminating the non-believers if they cannot be hidden? Ironically, I am a theist (specifically a Maimonidean rationalist), so I promote belief in God. (Even though I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God.) But I won't distort the numbers when it comes to citing how many people disagree with me, nor will I psuh my beliefs on others. Someone is clearly pushing bad data to push their religious beliefs. RK 15:16, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Bad Data

I'm sorry to hear that you dislike my sources. I am also sad to see that you simultaneously accuse me of distorting the facts, while grouping atheists, agnostics and "freethinkers" together as though they were a legitimate category with similar characteristics. I chose adherents.com because I had seen it used elsewhere in the wiki, and because it bothered to point out that those groups are "highly disparate ... and not a single religion" which is something that those who are trying to push this agenda of exadurating the size of this ridiculously small minority clearly enjoy doing. You statistics regarding the Czech republic have nothing to do with the statistics I provided regarding the United States and Australia. However I will admit that this page is not particularly well suited by documentation of the official numbers of adherents of any particular religion. When I saw the glaring error attempting to misstate (as you are clearly attempting to do) the percentage of atheists, I chose to point it out the best way possible, thru citation of sources. Jack 07:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is a well known alamanac, citing adherents.com as a source[3] and here is another link, this time citing only encyclopedia brittanica [4] and here is the CIA factbook statistics world wide [5] (notice I am not listing statistically bizzare places, such as the Czech republic) which gives an amazingly high (I think they must be counting all of N korea, etc...) 2.44%. In any case, please take your anti-science and underhanded debating techniques elsewhere, they are particularly unsuited for the learned. Jack 09:15, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I didn't said that adherents.com is unbelivable. I just pointed out major conflict of data between adherents.com and CIA World Factbook -- specifically number of Atheists in the Czech Republic (almost 40%) and the fact that Czech Republic is not listed as a country with many Atheists in adherents.com. (And adherents.com lists non-existent countries like East Germany, West Germany and Britain). Since those data are in conflict, and I (and you as well -- I suppose), am unable to find out which data is real, I decided to remove that data from the article. The fact that there is virtually no data about how many politheists, monotheists in the article; and somehow there is data about how few non-belivers made me to suggest agenda pushing. I deeply apologize if I was in error. Regarding your last sentence, will you please explain where are mine: anti-science and underhanded debating techniques, and who are those learned. Przepla 12:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am those learned, and I pray you are as well. While I was refering particularly to RK's ad hominem attack, I was also quite displeased with his and your innacurate insinuations of data conflict/bad data. There isn't one. And bringing the Czech republic (clearly an exceptional case) appeared to me to be unnecessarilly tricky (and/or ethnocentric if you are indeed Czech). The fact that the Czech republic is not listed on adherents.com (its old data, thats why they refer to East Germany, Czech was Czechslovak back then) has nothing to do with anything. My point was specific in refering to the anglosphere, and europe in general, and Czech was never specifically mentioned by anyone until you brought it up. Anyways, I don't see a need for mention of numbers of adherents in the text, and if you would like to learn about the exact percentages look into it with the links I provided, or any other reliable source, heck try atheism. Jack 12:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let me restate the text I removed: A small minority of people, making up less than one tenth of one percent of the population in the Australia, less than 0.7% in the U.S.[6], and rarely found outside of Europe and the Anglosphere, find the concept of God meaningless or unnecessary. I don't see almost 15% of human population -- non-religious 12.53%, atheists 2.44% according to CIA World Factbook small minority. 15 millions of non-adherents in Great Britain (25%), (again according to CIA World Factbook), 33% Atheists in France according to atheism article, and finally 40% in the Chech Republic does not definitely make a small minority in Europe. Removed statement is like Small minority of Christians, making less than 0.5% in Poland and Italy, and rarely found outside Nordic Europe, US, and Australia are not Roman Catholics. The problem is that Poland and Italy are most Roman Catholic countries in the World. As well as US is one of most religous countries in the Western Culture. Regarding learned, English is not my native language (I am a Pole) and I don't know what do you mean by it. My dictionary gives only those definitions: having a lot of knowledge obtained by study and of or for learned people. As such, having MA in Law, and MSc (eng.) in Technical Physics I think I qualify as learned. Przepla 12:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so your learned. Lets see if you can learn this: Non-religious, non-adherents, non-practicianers, secularists, agnostics, freethinkers, and people in france who agree that atheism "in part" describes their religious view etc... ARE NOT ATHEISTS. Atheists make up aprox. 2.44% of the world population. enuff said. Jack 13:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All more or less equivalent for practical purposes. I am an atheist. 81.86.225.46 13:17, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know that! However, Non-religious, non-adherents, non-practicianers, secularists, agnostics, freethinkers, and people in France who agree that atheism "in part" describes their religious view [the atheism article says "33% of French adults say that "atheist" defines their position on religion rather or very well" - Przepla] are people who find the concept of God meaningless or unnecessary. Atheists are not people who find the concept of God meaningless or unnecessary. but instead they assert that no God exists (atheism). Specifically, for agnostics concept of God in meaningless since it has no verifiable definition (Agnosticism). Przepla 13:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe in the existance of any gods, which makes me an atheist. But I don't assert that no god exists, because that would be silly - I haven't looked everywhere that a god could possibly be hiding. "Atheism" is commonly taken to mean "active denial of God or gods", but one doesn't need to actively deny something to lack belief in it. See weak atheism and strong atheism for more on this distinction. Bryan

I quoted the atheism article in my previous response: In modern usage as reflected in most dictionaries, atheism is the assertion that no gods exists, or that the existence of gods has infinitesimal probability.. I am perfectly aware of distiction between weak and strong atheism, and close similarity of weak atheism to agnosticism. As such, I think, atheism without any adjective means strong atheism, as correctly indicated in both articles quoted by you. If necessary let's continue this discussion on my talk page, since this seems off topic in Talk:God. Przepla 18:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so your learned. Lets see if you can learn this: Non-religious, non-adherents, non-practicianers, secularists, agnostics, freethinkers, and people in france who agree that atheism "in part" describes their religious view etc... ARE NOT ATHEISTS. Atheists make up aprox. 2.44% of the world population. enuff said. Jack 13:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack, but you don't know what you are talking about. Try doing some reading on the subject. All of these people reject the idea that one should believe in God, all of these find the idea of the God meaningless or unimportant. And most of these people use all three of these names interchangeably! Your studies which show low figures do not take such facts into account. Try reading the articles in Skeptic magazine, or Skeptical Inquirer, or the Humanist, to understand why all these names are effectively synonyms. I know that you are angry that so many people reject your religious beliefs, but these people exist whether you like it or not. You can't write millions of people out of existence, and it scares me when you try to do this. RK

Przepla writes "As such, I think, atheism without any adjective means strong atheism, as correctly indicated in both articles quoted by you. "

We need to clarify the difference between presciptive definitions, and common definition. Among most English speakers, the world "Atheism: is only loosely defined. Many people do not believe in God for a variety of reasons, or find no reason to be sure that God exists. A great many of these people use the words atheist or agnostic interchangeably. The majorty of self-identified atheists I know (rightly or wrongly) reject the definition of strong atheism given here. I just want to sound a note of caution on how we phrase things. RK

The fact remains that millions of people have moved away from theism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) and have become atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, Brights, etc. Claims to the contrary are argument by loud denial, and do not represent a factual picture of our post-Enlightenment world. RK

Logic

First of all, there is no "argument by loud denial" its something you made up. The idea that someone emphatically opposes your view is in no way inherently fallacious. Secondly, You are making a blatant Appeal to false authority with your amazingly biased sources, and simultaneously refusing to accept multiple valid sources on the subject of religious demographics. Furthermore you are perpetrating false generalizations in your attempt to include as many people as possible under the umbrella of atheism. This is a common technique of atheistic proselytizers, who commonly become wild in their exaggerations, when the number is documented at 2.44%. I don't know why I am bothering with this, there is a history of difficulties in doing so ([7] [8]) but perhaps it is because as a lover of God I see potential in everyone for progress. Please strive for logical and moral growth. JackLynch 09:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

@JackLynch. Are you implying that CIA World FactBook is a biased source -- as this is the only one referenced here beside adherents.com? Kindly re-read my previous statements. Specifically, I pointed out that previous statement in the God article was broad enough as to include not only atheism. When accusing others of broken logic kindly state what exacly statement is wrong and why. Please don't use such statements Please strive for [...] and moral growth or I see potential in everyone for progress. as they are irrelevant to discussion and unnecessary heat up this discussion. Let's try not to move this discussion to an emotional ground. Additionally we may ask for a mediation on Village Pump or similar page. Przepla 14:22, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No. I cite CIA.gov all the time, I sure hope its not biased! I was refering to "Skeptic magazine, or Skeptical Inquirer, or the Humanist". I wasn't accusing you of anything, Przepla. And I am seeking mediation for my complaints against RK for disregarding my sources, not with you. I'm not the least bit upset w you, but if your mad at me for some reason let me know what I can do for you. JackLynch 10:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So we may consider current version of God being a consensual one? BTW. It appears that I was responding to your responses to RK thinking it was a reponse to me. I'm sorry about that. Przepla 11:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Jack, if I end each of my comments with the assertion that Rev. Moon is the Messiah, will that convince you? ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:39, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(i am new to this conversation) - It seems that there is much dispute over these numbers. I have my own opinion on these numbers. I'll say only that my opinion is not radical; that it is not statistically implausible. Since there seems to be no clear and accepted number (if there were, people would generally accept it), I think it would be deceptive to say or imply in the article that there is. To mantain a NPOV, the article, therefore should either state all numbers with equal prominence, and cite them in proportion to the degree that their statement occurs (that is, given equal weight to all sources), or put no numbers at all. I am thus in agreement with the majority on this matter. -- Kevin Baas 18:42, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

God in the East

A belief in a [immortal, supernatural being, usually said to watch or rule over humanity and the universe] or [those plural] is found in 1) Taoism 2) Theravada Buddism

It looks like this statement is technically made by the article
I think, the statement is wrong
I suggest that you provide some references to prove it or clarify the corresponding frase in the article.
Thank you, ilya 21:40, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I move that these paragraphs be deleted on the grounds that they are meaningless waffle:

It [God] can also be used to refer to similar concepts such as an energy or consciousness that pervades the universe, and whose existence makes the universe possible; the source of all existence; the best and highest good within all sentient beings; or even that which is beyond all understanding or definition.

Conflicting interpretations arise regarding the name of "God", and what the name actually means — often the infinite God concept is mixed with non-infinite personifications of "God" (i.e. God as an old man, a Zeus or Odin.) A belief in a "God" or gods is found in many cultures, although followers of a particular God or gods may consider other gods to be inferior. Likewise many people hold non-literal, sometimes even secular interpretations of God — few of which may actually contradict the pure concept of an "infinite God," despite any contradictions these may have with any particular religious tradition.

Adam 13:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I dont find them meaningless. Andres

Well, I agree with Adam that this style of "some think this about X, some think that about X, so that there is no agreement on what X means", intentionally or not, shows either, a basic disinterest in the religious topic or, a commitment to a pluralistic view of the issue -- which is fine for Wikipedia, if it is made clear that this is a point of view to which some subscribe, who are disinterested or pluralistic. But the fact that, there are various gods according to various religions, is accounted for differently by a believer in Islam, or a Catholic, for example, than it is by a believer in religious ecclecticism or by an agnostic, or an atheist. The paragraph can be reworded into a report of that fact. Mkmcconn 15:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alright, so this higgs particle is also known as "the God particle". So what? How is this relevant? I call my pen "the God pen". Should there be a link to my pen on this page? -- Kevin Baas 22:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just added http://www.freewebs.com/thegodparticle/ as a possible source for an answer to your question. Bevo 22:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This God particle thing is very interesting. Some quantum mechanists have argued since particles come in and out of existance from nothingness (i.e. empty space is not really empty) that the universe could have been created out of nothing in the same way. There are many counter arguements to this though, and esp. since we do not have a unified theory of physics yet, but these ideas should be included, perhaps under a 'Science / Physics' heading. --ShaunMacPherson 22:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Etymology question

The first character in Ȝuðán in the etymology section does not display on my browser (Mozilla) and I have fonts that cover most of this territory. Is γuðán what is supposed to appear? If so, I or someone else can fix. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, its a Yogh that should be coming through. Morwen 20:30, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to ʒuðán, which technically is ezh rather than yogh, but at least on this browser it displays at the appropriate place on the line anyways. Apparently my fonts antedate the drawing of the distinction in Unicode, but if mine do, it is likely that others' do as well. Smerdis of Tlön 20:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)