Talk:Deity
|
|
| Contents |
Redirect
I wonder why this page redirects to God, a page that mainly describes the Christian view. I thing deity or deities could be a god starting point for a more NPOV-centered reference to various deities in various belief-systems and religions? --till we *) 16:21 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)
- I disagree, if you read the article God, it isn't remotely close to focusing on a judeau christian God. I feel strongly this page aught to redirect, its a stub w no future, and no special definition of its own. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new)] 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I have to humbly disagree with you, Sam. Allow me to quote the first two lines of God
- "God refers to the supreme being, often conceived of as a ruler or creator of the universe. This concept of God is common in monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Brahmanism, Vaishnavism, and Shaivism interpretations of Hinduism.
- When used as a proper noun, "God" is typically capitalized. This article is not about the concept of gods, goddesses and deities in general."
- That's plainly monotheistic... ClockworkTroll 22:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That, too, is correct. However, by definition a polytheistic religion does not have a single "supreme being" to the exclusion of other beings. In fact, God specifically states: "This article is not about the concept of gods, goddesses and deities in general."l it could be made to be such, but serious effort would have to go into balancing the emphasis. Additionally, I feel that the monotheistic god is so subject-rich that it deserves its own page, and I disagree with you that deity is destined to remain a stub forever. Much can be written on the many regional Buddhist ideas of deities alone. ClockworkTroll 22:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You have done a very good job, from what I have seen. I am now convinced this article is going somewhere, and that it should remain independant for the time being. I also think the different supernatural/spiritual entities aught to have a project, or template, or some sort of connection, and I agree with you that a reader might be looking for something other than the entry they find, or that they might well be interested in multiple entries on variations of spiritual entities. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new)] 23:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sam Spade. I appreciate that. I haven't done much with it, but I think this little Deity article has some potential, and I'll be happy to get it moving in the right direction. ClockworkTroll 23:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sam's just informed me that this page now describes "deity" as excluding monotheism. I think that's incorrect, both in that it shouldn't exclude monotheism and also in that I don't think the article as it currently stands excludes monotheism. The disambiguation note at the top should be amended in light of that, IMO. Bryan 01:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems strange to talk about the sage brushes ... surely a section on Animism or something like that would be more appropriate than this highly specific entry?
Definition
- The current definition seems too complex for the word. Isn't 'deity' just an asexual (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=asexual) (having no evident sex) way to say 'god', so in general is 'a god or goddess'? I kind of like dictionary.com's definition 2a of deity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deity), being "The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.", but again the main definition is 'a god or goddess'.
- Mirriam-Webster deity #2 (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=deity) states this.
- Cambridge deity (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=20451&dict=CALD) states this.
- It should be pointed out that "The Diety" as a proper noun would mean a different thing (more the one supreme creator god or some such), but that should not be the main definition.
-Jayon 17:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
POV portion moved from article
Neither Gods nor other supernatural entities and forces figure in scientific theories, although scientists themselves may hold various religious views. But there have been controversial attempts to introduce God into science, for example, creationism, or Intelligent Design Theory, rejected by most scientists as pseudo-science.
- I find this to be highly perjorative and innaccurate. Something very different could address these very ideas in an accurate, neutral manner. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 23:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Really, where do supernatural entities figure in any scientific theory? Or are you objecting to the characterization of creationism and IDT as pseudo-science? --BM 02:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolute infinite is one obvious example. And yes, I object to the usage of "rejected by most scientists as pseudo-science", if nothing else I'd like a cite on that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 11:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well that isn't a scientific theory. It is religious philosophy from a mathematician. That it was advanced by a mathematician doesn't make it science. I challenge you to find any evidence that the Absolute Infinite is taught in any level of mathematics courses, as mathamatics. You couldn't get a Ph.D. in Mathematics by writing about it. For that, you'd need to go to the Philosophy department, or perhaps you could get away with it as History of Science. --BM 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
definition
Isn't "supernatural entity" too vague (c.f. Talk:Atheism)? Deities in most books would presuppose consciousness. A formless "entity", maybe an algorithm, or an artefact, should not be classified as deities. Deities are in a sense 'alive', some may even die. Maybe "conscious being considered to be esentially above human comprehension" dab (ᛏ) 12:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)