Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll

This is an informal Poll, attempting to clarify community opinion on the contentious spelling of... God or god, particularly as used in this article, but generally as used elsewhere. I will attempt to place the divergent opinions here as clearly as possible. If you don't like how I arrange it, discuss that here:

Contents

1 Discussion of options in poll 2 Poll 3 Comments 4 Some discussion between Bryan and Sam 5 run-off election/Compromise? 6 Foolishness and vanity 7 is God a god? 8 Names for God 9 Consensus

Discussion of options in poll

• If changes are to be made to the options after votes have been cast, voters will be contacted and offered the opportunity to change their vote, as necessary.

hey user:snoyes... if your going to place that link to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theism)

"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.", I may have to change my vote ;) Have you reviewed it? IMO it does not accurately express the diverging opinion (removing "God"). If that was the usage on the atheism page, I would have agreed to it long ago.... Sam Spade

Of course I review the stuff before I insert it here. :) "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God" places the Monotheistic, personal entity called "God" by the adherents of such doctrines in the category of "a god or gods". "God" is a special instance of the class "a god or gods", but the option you propose below says that "God" and "a god or gods" are separate. - snoyes 05:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not real sure I understand that. I will say again, the usage cited here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theism) is perfectly acceptable. The only refernce source I diagree with is encarta. Sam Spade 06:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also object to the use of "will" in either proposal (as in will use lower case "g"'s), as it is overly contentious. Sam Spade 05:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any use of "will" in that sense below. (only "should" and "it is useful to"), but go ahead and change it if you feel that the present wording can be improved. - snoyes 05:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see, you changed it before I responded. That's why I didn't see any such usage. Makes sense ;-) - snoyes 05:22, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The only objection that comes to mind at the moment is that "refers" shouldn't be apostrophized in the first option. :) Bryan 05:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ok Sam Spade 05:57, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's with this new option suddenly appearing, without any comment or even an indication in the edit summaries? As far as I can tell, it's not really relevant to the issue at hand (whether God should be used here, in the atheism article), and overlaps somewhat with one of the existing options besides. Bryan 17:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The current options are stupid. It's time to withdraw the vote and go back to discussion, perhaps. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and request suggestions for new poll options. All voters from the previous poll can (and will) be contacted once the new poll is designed. Too many changes occured thruout. For example, after snoyes edits to the options, I can't say I entirely disagree with the alternative presented (to simplify, I agree w dictionary.com's wording). If thats really the opposition view, I see no need for a poll, and am rather inclined to take the opportunity to agree on a concensus. Sam Spade 01:54, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll

• God refers to a monotheistic (not necessarily the abrahamic) deity, who is distinct from, and not included in, the words god and gods. Therefore it is useful to use a wording similar to that found in other encyclopedias and reference sources, such as dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Atheism), encyclopedia.com (http://encyclopedia.com/html/a1/atheism.asp) or Encyclopædia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117394&tocid=0&query=atheism&ct=) in this entry and others.

1. Sam Spade 03:28, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Banno 19:34, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) What makes atheism and agnosticism interesting is their attitude towards God; their attitude towards gods is not noticeably divergent from that of many other folk.
3. The Anome 02:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) It's a proper noun issue, folks.

• God refers to a monotheistic (not necessarily the abrahamic) deity, who is distinct from, and not included in, the word gods. Therefore it is useful to use a wording similar to that found in other encyclopedias and reference sources, such as dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Atheism), dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theism), encyclopedia.com (http://encyclopedia.com/html/a1/atheism.asp) or Encyclopædia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117394&tocid=0&query=atheism&ct=) in this entry and others.

1. Anthony DiPierro

• god and/or gods encompasses all spiritual entities rejected by atheists. The wikipedia, in its goal of NPOV, should reject biased usages, and use lower case "g"'s. Therefore it is useful to use a wording similar to that found in other encyclopedias and reference sources, such as dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theism) and Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/SRPage.aspx?search=atheism&Submit2=Go) in this entry and others. [Note that this convoluted and confusingly-worded option amounts to the same thing as the clearly worded option further below, which was only added after 17 people had already voted under this clumsy wording. (i,e, Use god when referring to a generic diety. use God when referring to a specific one --- e.g, in an article about the US Constitution, you may refer to it simply as the Constitution, whereas in an articles about constitutions in general you would use the lowercase form - Tannin]

1. UtherSRG 05:48, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Bryan 05:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. mav 06:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) (just because Christians have no real name for their god does not mean that the word only belongs to them. God, as a concept, is more than just one version of it.)
4. Delirium 06:01, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC) ("a god or gods" covers the concept)
5. ShaneKing 06:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) (God is an overloaded word, is not inclusive enough, and is a subset of god and/or gods. This option is clearly superior)
6. Tannin 06:59, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) (The rules of correct english are very easy to apply here. When we refer to an exact, particular god such as the God of the Christians, we capitalise. Otherwise, lower case is always correct.)
7. Morwen 07:14, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC) (Apollo is not a God, but is a god, and I don't believe in him, either)
8. mydogategodshat 07:42, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)(Christians should no more have the right to switch the wording to God than Muslums should have the right to switch it to Alah. We are a multi-cultural encyclopedia and should use the most general term. To do anything else is disrespectful. The only place that god should be capitalized is when we are refering specificly to the Judio-Christian god, and in that case it/It/He/he should be referred to as the Judio-Christian God.)
9. No-One Jones 08:57, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see below)
10. [[Exploding Boy]] perhaps with a note that "some atheists believe in the non-existence of all gods and some in specific gods, such as the Christian God." Exploding Boy 08:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
11. Secretlondon 09:54, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
12. Emsworth 11:34, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
13. Bmills 11:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) In the hope that the outcome will be accepted and the debate can end. A large part of the problem is that many who adhere to a religion can't believe that atheists fail to see their particular god as being special. Atheists do not not believe in your god, we do not believe in any god, so favouring one god with an uppercase is contrary to the subject of the article.Retaining lowercase 'g' is just like people quite correctly changing my Br. English spellings when I write about American topics. Bmills 09:20, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

    Yep. Stopped believing in the easter bunny when I was 6 and santa claus when I was 10. Now I just believe in Me. Denni

14. Danny 12:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
15. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:03, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC) No-brainer, time waster, yawn.
16. Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
17. MikeCapone 15:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
18. Texture 17:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
19. James F. (talk) 05:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
20. Pakaran. 06:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) I am an equal-opportunity Atheist, and support the right of all gods to equal non-existence :)
21. Graham :) 02:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
22. The Krell Machine
23. Jamesday Websters (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=god) is clear that lower case is the generic form and upper case references only a single deity of the Christian type.
24. Vanieter 07:39, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Use god when referring to a generic diety. use God when referring to a specific one (i.e. in an article about the US Constitution, you may refer to it simply as the Constitution, whereas in an articles about constitutions in general you would use the lowercase form)

1. Dori
2. Seth Ilys 16:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC), but all uses of the capialized God should be clarified as to what theistic tradition each refers to. Decapitalization will likely be seen as offensive and highly POV to many Christians, who consistute a large portion of the English-speaking population. If we decapitalize the Christian God, should we also decapitalize the Muslim Allah?
   • (not a vote) No, Allah is never lowercase, because the Arabic equivalent of lowercase-g god is "ilah". ---No-One Jones
3. Adam Bishop 16:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. Anthony DiPierro (but sometimes using both God and god is more clear and NPOV, see for example dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theism))
5. Jwrosenzweig This makes more sense to me. Mirv's comment is confusing to me...the Christian God is never lowercase either...the English equivalent of a lowercase-g god is, well, god. So, will we say "Christians believe that their god, God, does X" or "Christians believe that God does X" (with perhaps an intro explaining who this "God" is)? I much prefer the latter. I trust no Muslim would want the sentence "Muslims believe that their god Allah does X", but would prefer a brief intro explaining who Allah is, followed by sentences like "Muslims believe that Allah does X".
6. User: Exploding Boy Dammit, you went and changed the poll partway through
7. Infrogmation 06:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Jmabel 08:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) The first thing you want to know about any particular atheist is precisely which god he or she doesn't believe in...
9. Taku 19:53, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC) Theism is highly POV itself.
10. Davodd 11:19, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC) This is similar to the Sun/sun and Solar system/solar system debate. As The Anome says, it is a proper noun issue.
11. Luis Dantas 22:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comments

"God, as a concept, is more than just one version of it" That sums up my opinion pretty well. What makes you think God refers only to a christian diety? Christains use "Jehova" and "YHWH" among other names. Sam Spade 06:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well clearly not everyone reads your preferred phrasing in such a light. As I noted, God (with capital G) is an overloaded word, it has multiple meanings. Why risk misunderstanding when there is an alternative that doesn't have such risks? ShaneKing 06:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

thats exactly my point. Failure to use this "loaded" word, with ALL of its multiple meanings ensures misunderstanding (and is a misuse of the term "atheism"). Sam Spade 06:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So you're saying that unless we use a term that will be misunderstood, people will misunderstand the article? Such a stance defies my comprehension. ShaneKing 06:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Erm, I haven't voted because I'm a bit confused. The wording on the poll question sort of seems to converge in that I could vote yes for both, and some of the responses seem to suggest the same. How is it different to say that God means the one Christian god and god means any other god or gods?

The issue is about whether "God" should be used explicitly in the article on atheism, specifically, or whether "a god or gods" should be used with God being covered implicitly as one member of that classification. Bryan 08:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You make a very good point. This has absolutely nothing to do with specific mention of the Christian God. Brahman is also perfect example of God, as is the God of ], Cosmotheism, Buddhism, Taoism, Panentheism Islam, Judaism etc...

There _is_ no Buddhist God, however. Buddhist deities are something else entirely. For that matter, so are most if not all Shinto Kami and (I think) any Taoist entities. There is a strong tendency to see other religions as similar to Abrahamic ones, but that is generally speaking an oversimplification.

There's the rub, eh? As far as I'm aware, God with a capital G refers to the Christian god, and not any of those other ones (well, the gods of Islam and Judaism too, in some circumstances). And so, the poll. Bryan 08:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Imagine if the wording were changed from ""The literal meaning of the term is therefore without God" to "The literal meaning of the term is therefore without Allah" or "The literal meaning of the term is therefore without YHWH" -- the problem with capital-G God would become readily apparent, as all three terms share a referent. (Lowercase-g "god" is also the correct translation of the Greek θεος; capital-G is usually called "kyrios" in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, when the name isn't left untranslated.) No-One Jones 08:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I think the three monotheistic religions believe in the same God, they just have different interpretations of what has been said. If I remember correctly, the Muslims believe that the Kuran is just a continuation of the Christian and Jewish holy texts (just a more complete version or some such). Dori | Talk 15:24, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

You are entirely correct -- what I meant by "all three terms share a referent" was, YHWH, Allah, and capital-G God are different names for the same deity. I meant to demonstrate how ludicrous the introduction to the article would appear if one of the other names were used instead of capital-G God. ---No-One Jones 15:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, although not, perhaps, relevant here, the Indonesian word 'Allah' (derived from Arabic, obviously) reffers both to the Islamic deity and the Christian one. Indonesian Christians refer to God as Allah. Mark Richards 16:34, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who fucked up the poll. There are now more options than last time I looked. Any data obtained is useless now. I think someone is trying to sabatage this poll. mydogategodshat 01:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think so. I think we need to step back, discuss the wording of the options, and begin again. Sam Spade 01:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really think that when one option is clearly preferred (as it is here), that doing such a thing would be a complete waste of everyone's time. Especially since the trend was the same before the poll was edited. ShaneKing 02:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Sam/Jack has tried to "start over again" previously when things have gone against him in talk pages and in complaints against users in the past, and I don't buy it here. The poll was very clearly going against using the big G in the atheism article before things started going haywire, which is the primary reason we were having this poll in the first place. I doubt it'll go any differently if it's redone from scratch. Bryan 02:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't understand the difference between the second and third options. The sources cited in the second option seem to be consistent with the principle stated in the third option. I would have thought a capital letter is used wherever the word is grammatically a proper noun. -- Tim Starling 05:42, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Its a very subtle difference isn't it. What you describe is the second option. It states that whenever you refer to an anthropomorphic god (that is a personal god, one with human-like characteristics, one that you can relate to through human like interactions like talking to him (prayer), listening to him (divination), or believe that you are created in his image), then proper grammar requires that we capitalize the name of this individual. Examples would include Thor (Norse), Allah (Muslem), Zeus (Roman), God (Christian), Kristna (Hindu), YHWH (Hebrew). But many religions have a non-personal concept of god (Buddhist, Shintu, ect). In these cases, no capitalization should be applied. When talking about the concept of godliness in general, or about the class of all gods, use the most general form, ie., no capitalization.

That is subtly different from the third option that says that all references to specific gods should be capitalized, whether they are a personal pronoun or not.mydogategodshat 06:47, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The wording of the choice with currently the most votes, was changed after I added another option (the one I have voted for). You'll have to look at the history to figure it out. Dori | Talk 06:38, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if sample sentences were given which are contested. -- Tim Starling 15:15, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't care whether God or god is used. Which poll question am I supposed to agree too ? -- Derek Ross 06:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are lots of suns, and at the same time the Sun is the center of the the Earth's planetary system (see Sun and its capitalization). This is the usual capitalization system which should be used here as well (as WP does neither assume nor deny the existence of one or several deities). I see no point in voting on this: it is just a grammatical problem. Pfortuny 21:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some discussion between Bryan and Sam

I think the main problem Sam's having is based on his assertion "God refers to a monotheistic (not necessarily the abrahamic) deity, who is distinct from, and not included in, the words god and gods." During the month of arguments on talk:atheism he said at several points that he didn't think God was a god. I'm not really sure what he thinks God is if not a god, but I guess it's a bigger issue for him than simply one of grammar. I do agree that this poll is silly considering how clear the consensus is, but such is Wikipedia. :) Bryan 00:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I reccomend you look up the word "consensus", and review what you see above. Sam Spade 00:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Read it, reviewed it, and noted that there are about 30 votes against your position and 3 for it (including one by The Anome which cites an article that explicitly describes God as a type of god, suggesting perhaps he wasn't reading too closely at the time he cast it). Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Bryan 00:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A perfect example of the painful pointlessness in attempting to communicate with you. Concensus is about agreement on something, not disagreement. If you think everyone who voted "against me" was in concensus, I simply don't know how to respond to such wackyness. To be frank, the primary lack of concensus appears to be in regards to the options themselves, and the ways in which they were altered after the start of the poll. As I mentioned to snoyes, after they altered the (at that time 2nd, now 3rd) option, I could have agreed w half of it (the part refering to dictionary.com). Anyways this is a mess, and I find your inability to understand that excellent cause for our upcoming mediation (as if there were any prior lack ;) Sam Spade 20:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by "consensus is about agreement on something, not disagreement" being incompatable with my opinion that the consensus is pretty clear at this point. Very few people have agreed with your position that God is not included in the words god or gods. Anyway, on with the show. Bryan 02:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of consensus certainly allows the word to be used to refer to agreement by most people. However, it also lists agreement by all people as a meaning of consensus. So you're both right. The question really is why wikipedia policy should mention a word so fuzzy in its meaning? ShaneKing 03:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, fooey. I was going by what the Wikipedia article consensus defined it as; "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community." I took that to mean "most" rather than "all." Perhaps that's what the policy authors were working from too. If unanimity is required I doubt any major conflict would ever get resolved, so hopefully there'll be some clarifications available somewhere. :) Bryan 03:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What was there a general agreement about, might I ask? Sam Spade 05:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"god and/or gods encompasses all spiritual entities rejected by atheists." "Agree": 32; "Disagree": 4. - snoyes 06:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't think for a moment that I call that anything other than fraud, so I'm not sure what purpose it serves rather than a joyful backslapping before the next stage in mediating this. Sam Spade 18:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Fraud" - can you clarify? As to your charge that "it serves rather than a joyful backslapping before the next stage", you initiated the poll - so don't complain when the majority of people vote against you. - snoyes 18:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As someone who voted in the final option of the poll, I agree that for Atheism we are talking about a lack of belief in "any god". I simply chose that option to be sure that we don't start changing other articles to read things like "Christians believe the Bible is the word of god" instead of "word of God". I would humbly suggest to Sam that almost all of us on that final option would say that an atheist disbelieves in deities in general, hence use lowercase "g" for the general deity. I think consensus is obvious here. Jwrosenzweig 18:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not only is it not, but I call into question anyones understanding of concensus that would describe this as one. Sam Spade 18:33, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

run-off election/Compromise?

All right then, let's have a run-off election. Choose the two most popular options above and force us to choose one or the other...perhaps we'll reach consensus that way? I have great hope that we would. Jwrosenzweig 18:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would maybe agree to something like that that didn't involve the definitions above, but rather created 2 new ones, which a concensus could be agreed opon. I get the impression that if we were to honestly portray the options, we might not need the poll, and might find our concensus forthwith. I have said repeatedly that my requests simply involve compatability w basic sources of info, like Dictionary.com. If you use the version they have, and consistantly, I (and I would assume most everybody else, from what I see above) would have concensus. That is of course if this is not a political/personality debate, rather than what is best for the article ;) Clearly I have many doubts after the above circumstances, but I am always ready to do what is best for the article. Sam Spade 19:08, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) Sam Spade 19:08, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary.com themselves are inconsistent (between their definition of "theism" and "atheism". The crux of the poll is whether "God" is included in the set of: "a god or gods". So a simple yes/no poll on that matter would be good. (and agreeing on the questions before casting the votes would also be a good idea) - snoyes 19:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree entirely w your allegation of inconsistancy against dictionary.com, and I would be interested to hear what they have to say about that. I wonder if theres any chance of getting some outside experts involved? I am clearly less than thrilled w our current "expertise" ;) Is there any precedent for such on the wiki? What happens when the majority is wrong, due to their over-riding bias? Wiki needs editors!!! Sam Spade 19:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I thought the inconsistency was obvious: from dictionary.com, atheism: "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."; theism: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods". See their inconsistency? Wikipedia doesn't need any outside editors. And I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim of fraud against me. - snoyes 19:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why two new ones? 32 of 36 voters preferred one of two options above. In a run-off election, when two candidates receive above 85% of the vote, I know of no country or locality that assumes, "well, we need to find two totally new candidates then...obviously the electorate isn't settled." We're settled on one of two options. This isn't a personality debate- -- I've never had a disagreement with you, Sam. I honestly think the two popular options represent what this community is wanting to choose between, that one of them will be good for the article, and that the sooner this is done with, the better. Let's put up the pool with the 3rd and 4th options and see if consensus develops. Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm... your count is completely wrong? What gives? Sam Spade 19:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think anybody bought into that bunk tannin put in about the last 2 options being the same, did they? Because they most certainly arn't. Sam Spade 19:22, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They are essentially the same, the only difference is that the last one clarifies that "God" will be used to refer to the specific monotheistic god. - snoyes 19:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid edit wars, or I would have deleted that a long time ago. But given tannis history w me, I didn't think it was worth the confrontation. Anyways, its a complete joke and fraud to claim the 3rd and fourth catagories somehow agree. Sam Spade 19:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I count 36 votes (3, 1, 22, and 10) with 32 for the final two options. Did I miss someone? Didn't intend to, anyhow. And Sam? Wikipedia has editors. We're them. And if you want an expert, well, I don't know who's expert in deciding how to refer to God. I would offer that, as someone possessing a B.A. in English and 2 years of graduate work in religious history, I am not unqualified to offer an opinion -- I might even resent being treated as someone who doesn't understand the issue, although I doubt you meant any offense. I am sure we could find many others with more expertise, but how much do we need for this remarkably small matter? Shall we contact John Dominic Crossan? The OED editors? I think we have enough expertise in the people here to handle this. Jwrosenzweig 19:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. Tannin is in error, I think. I agree with you: therefore there is nothing to do but hold a run-off election between the options. Glad we're seeing things from the same side.

You skills both intrigue and suprise me. Do you sincerely think it is honest to use the lower case G in refering to God, when all sources of reference (with the sole exception of Encarta, a source I personally despise) do not? Why must wiki take this stand, and to what end? I find it a fearsom slap to the face for both our theistic, and our un-opinionated readers, and a complete parody of NPOV. Sam Spade 21:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, my opinion is clearly to reach concensus regarding new options, not to hold a run off. Be careful not to misunderstand, and assume I support a run off election, when I (along w so many others) validly object to the proposals as written. Sam Spade 21:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Foolishness and vanity

This whole thing is foolish. The term "God" (big g) refers to any conceived monotheistic god such as the Creator. The term "god" is a more general term, which may or may not include the specific Big G fella.

Atheists insist on little g for the Abrahamic God, because they want to ridicule the idea of a Creator. And they have every right to their disdain and desire to ridicule. But this is an encyclopedia, not a debating ground. Moreover, it is an English-language encyclopedia, so we should follow established usage.

Say that Atheists reject the concept of monotheism, including the concept of a monotheistic creator. And avoid mentioning "God" except in quotations attributed to advocates.

If some writer wants to say god does not exists a la e.e. cummings, by all means quote their lowercase usage. If we can find some atheist who says that God does not exists, quote him too.

Why make such a big deal?

Are you hoping that Wikipedia will take a stand endorsing the idea that God does not exist? Or that God does exist? I thought we agreed years ago not to fight over this. Sheesh. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We capitalize other entities that we don't think exist, e.g. Dumbo, so that wouldn't seem to be the issue. It's a proper noun, so should be capitalised where it refers to a specific entity (whether we believe or not in the entity). Mark Richards 22:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I don't think you see anybody here arguing that we should call the monotheistic deity "god" (with lower-case 'g'). The argument is whether "god and/or gods encompasses all spiritual entities rejected by atheists", including 'God'. There are hence people who in the name of logic want to call 'God' "a god". Others simply refute this usage, saying that 'God' is somehow special, and doesn't fall into the category of "a god or gods". - snoyes 22:26, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, I am not advocating the usage of god-with-a-small-g as a way to "ridicule the idea of a Creator." When I want to talk about the Abrahamic God specifically I use the capital G, since for better or for worse that's the name it's known by. When I say "I don't believe in god" I am not referring specifically to the one named God, I am referring to any god, including but not limited to the one named God (it's actually a somewhat badly phrased statement even so, though; it's similar to saying "I don't believe in unicorn." It should properly be either "I don't believe in gods" or "I don't believe in any god."). Furthermore, it's not just monotheism that's covered, it's all types of theism. I'm not taking a position on whether God actually exists by saying any of this, mind you, I'm taking a position on what atheism means. Bryan 02:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I have to say I am shocked at how much I agree with Ed here. Just goes to show how matters of personal grumpiness have little or nothing to do with factual accuracy. Sam Spade 02:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy is important in articles, just as clear and courteous communication is important between contributors. For what it's worth, I'm sorry I said, "I'm just one notch away from asking the developers to determine whether you're the re-incarnation of some hard- banned user like EntmootOfTrolls." --Uncle Ed 14:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well put, Ed. Banno 10:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

is God a god?

So the question hinges on whether God is a god? Mark Richards 07:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

mine (absolute infinite) isn't. Sam Spade 08:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We should give God some respect and agree that if he exists, he would be a god. mydogategodshat 08:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it isn't a god, then I don't see what atheism has to do with it anyway. However, I also think that it's a rather nonstandard sort of God that isn't a god, as these things are usually described. Bryan 08:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Eureka. I think you may have finially figured out what the problem is. The way you have defined atheism, it fails to reject the One God Who Is All. Ergo, the article is BS, leaving most theist's to be defined as atheists by your corny definition. Its exactly this kind of anti-intellectual bunk that I am fighting with in so many places on the wiki. There IS objective truth, dammit! The wiki is no place for a "factual relativism" agenda Sam Spade 21:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not really Eureka, in that I have no idea what you're talking about and there seem to be some huge problems still left to resolve. If this "One God Who Is All" isn't a god then why do you think atheism has anything to do with whether people believe in it or not? Why should it be mentioned at all in this article? As far as I can tell you might as well be talking about whether atheists believe in Sasquatch or in string theory (ie, other non-god things that atheism also has nothing to do with). How do you know that there is objective truth, and that this thing you're talking about is one of the things that's objectively true (as I'm assuming you would claim)? On top of it all your use of the name "God" to label this thing you are talking about remains quite confusingly nonstandard, it usually refers to the Abrahamic God. Is there no other name you can use? Bryan 02:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Names for God

There are many acceptable names for my God. I will list some of them for educational purposes. Brahman Allah existence Sanatana Dharma Absolute Infinite All, and of course, the Great "I AM". Those who know my God are not few in number. You have a couple of options as I see it. You can define atheism in a way that is essentially meaningless. You can define atheism in a way that is inaccurate. Or, you can define it as the rejection of God, Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin. Sam Spade 03:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stop trying to incite flamewars, Sam. Your behavior here is unacceptable.—Eloquence

I'm sorry if I upset you, and I hope we have resolved matters. Sam Spade 03:49, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

It appears consensus has been achieved, largely in thanks to Eloquence. I am moving this to old polls, and after a week or so, will again move it to closed polls. If this is disagreeable to you, let me know. Sam Spade 20:24, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Consensus? Not at all. People seem greatly divided on this issue. Anthony DiPierro 20:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Look at the article itself. The problem is now resolved. Sam Spade 20:42, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)