Talk:Misotheism

message: I reverted the Eutheism and Dystheism article to get rid of the redirect, which I don't feel is appropriate.  I see no reason to redirect from an article that concerns both of these terms to an article the concerns only one.  The reason cited for the redirect is that the article converns mostly distheism; however Eutheism and dystheism are two very closely related terms. 
If the article is mostly about Dystheism, that is only because of the last set of revisions to this article, which added a great deal of information relating to dystheism only.  Moreover this latest revision is very problematic for a number of reasons:
1) Presents dystheism as an accepted term from intellectual history, which it isn't.  The definition of the term must indicate the term's extremely limited usage to avoid misleading readers. 
2) The article is very NPOV regarding divine command theory, which it calls: "a largely discredited approach to morality"
3) The "Historical Perspective" section here is generally questionable.  Byron and his own subconscious notwithstanding, Milton was a devout Puritan, and citing PL here is not accurate.   "Trickster Gods" have no relevance to these terms that pertain specifically to montheism.  Wiesel and post-holocaust theology are more appropriate; however care must be taken in any "historical" section to avoid implying that any pre 1998 writers chracterized their own writings as "dystheisic" who in fact did not.
4) the list of "related terms" is abritrary and unnecessary, and includes an inaccurate definition of misotheism, which is defined in all the sources I've seen as a "hatred of God or Gods" (its only usage cited by OED refers to gods).  The list of related terms also includes a reference to "Maltheism," which is not an encyclopedic term; refernces to Maltheism should be removed.  
5) generally including a huge amount of inappropriate description and argument (such as eleborate defintions of related terms that are defined elsewhere in \wikipedia)
Because of these problems I will insert a redirect from this page back to Eutheism and Dystheism, which I have edited to include the strong points of this article, especially the reference to Wiesel.  I will add footnotes and some more formatting to that page tomorrow.ThaddeusFrye 02:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm relieved to see that although there was no further discussion of Theophilism redirecting here, it no longer does that. Downstrike (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-redirect

message: I read in many places that Karl Marx was a Maltheist (or at least used Maltheistic language symbolically). He even wrote a poem called Invocation of One in Despair and a play calle Oulenam, which are available at Marxists.org under A Book of Verse. It is all actually quite interesting, sounds a little bit like black metal material actually.
69.248.43.95 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Marx 

message: I was rather disturbed by the recent set of edits to the Dystheism article which clearly sought to violate NPOV guidelines, until I noticed it had been inserted by someone who had taken issue with the original maltheism and dystheism articles way back when. Even though I know this person is a serious contributor to Wikipedia, I cannot fathom the reasons for this vandalism. I call it vandalism because it attempted to diffuse the article's content in a misleading way. There was this edit:
: There are, however, numerous recorded instances of spontaneous expression of "hatred of God", not as a stated theological principle but as a statement of anger or unhappiness over misfortunes attributed to Acts of God, frequently taking the form of blasphemous utterances along the lines of "may I be damned"
This text seems to have been inserted to diminish the sentiments described here. Numerous authors and artists were cited offering serious crafted works, not as impromptu bursts of anger but as statements of deep conviction about the nature of God. Why was it necessary to invoke such dismissive language, the purpose of which would seem only to be derogation of the belief being described?
:A possible reason for the apparent rarity of real world dystheists is terminological: people who do believe in an evil supernatural being do not tend to identify it as "God", but rather as "demon", "devil" or similar.
Except that is not the belief being described in this article at all, and I am sure this person is aware of that. This article concerns itself with a belief about God'. The article describes the contrast between this belief and other beliefs like Gnosticism to make such distinctions clear. This sentence (and the other sentence cited above) would lead the reader to believe that such belief does not exist, even though citations of such belief are demonstrated.
Mr. Bachmann, we have talked about this in the past, you have been direct and civil in our discussions. But here you attempted to introduce a blatantly negative bias into this article, for whatever reason. You claimed, in your comments, that you had "found a reference at last"—where were you looking that you had not found references before this, especially in light of the numerous references cited? I would ask you to recuse yourself from further edits to this article, since these interjected statements violate NPOV guidelines and since you seem to have an agenda in editing it.
As to the idea that the Biblical support for dystheism article should be folded into this one: I made an initial attempt to do this very thing, and it resulted in an article that was much too long. I would propose rather that the scope of that article be broadened, to include not only the Bible but the Koran and other religious texts. There is certainly precedent for creating a list of this nature, but I don't have a good title for such an article. ("Support for dystheism in religious texts"??) Thank you.
Craig zimmerman 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Craig, the point is the first attestation, and 1907 is earlier than 1913. Why are we having this conversation? Also, you've had full two years time to provide evidence that there are dystheists. You haven't. This is an article about a position that can be argued theoretically, but is not actually held. we as in "several Wikipedians" have discussed this with you in the past. It became evident that this is your personal project, and nobody had the heart or cared enough to Afd it, and people really went out of their way to improve your "maltheism" essay. After two years, I don't think much more evidence will emerge. Per WP:OWN, you cannot keep your essay here just because you like to. I maintain that this topic now needs to be cleaned up in accordance with its notability and the evidence that has been provided. Sourced positions we can keep, your personal dialectics will have to go. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: that said, you should understand that I am sympathetic towards the topic. I am not trying to censor you, I am trying to morph this into an encyclopedic writeup that can stand on its own. I am sorry, but Wikipedia policy will not allow rhetorical arguing of your case, you will have to use your blog for that, and I am happy to endorse the link to your blog staying on this article. If you manage to collect your writings and publish it in the form of a pamphlet or little book, I will happily cite you here and summarize your position. peace, dab (𒁳) 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: These are statements that are clearly in violation of NPOV guidelines. You insist that "people who believe in an evil supernatural being do not tend to identify it as God." But we are talking about the very people who take the position that it is the thing identified as God that is being described as evil, and examples from literature, art, and theology were offered. Elie Wiesel's book is not called "The Trial of Some Supernatural Evil Being But Not God Because God is Defined as Good." Provoost's "The Shadow of the Ark" talks about a flood caused by God, and she suggests that we do not need and should not trust the God we have in this world. (The Provoost quote, by the way, is from an interview with her, which is cited explicitly in the references. Perhaps that was not clear.) Blumenthal and Sutherland speak of abuses by God, not abuses by some other supernatural being, and they do so as theologians from a theological perspective. In short, these statements of yours were uncalled for, and they introduce a bias that indicates that all these people are merely expressing spontaneous anger against God, "shaking their fists at him" so to speak, as if to condescendingly suggest this is just something they'll all "get over" eventually. I would like to remove these statements and replace them with the ones originally there, which did not introduce this bias. (You say you are "sympathetic" to the topic here, but I find that hard to believe with what seemed to be a deliberate injection of dismissive language.)
* Your point, that no one (or at best an insignificant number of people) flies the flag labeling themselves "dystheists" or "maltheists," is understood. But it is not "original research" to catalog in an encyclopedic article instances of a phenomenon and to give that phenomenon a name, or choose a name from among the set of available applicable words, especially if that phenomenon lacks a single definitive name. That is what this article has attempted to do.
* I could dwell on your attitude that this is all just "something I wrote in school" and that the references on the web are just "my blog" and "my posts," but that would be counterproductive. Still, I believe that this merits at least a mention here. Never mind that I pointed to virtually nothing of my own writing, the posts and the blog are my father's creation. (Perhaps he wrote them when he was in school? Does this matter, or is such language just a tool for disparagement?) Whatever. Can we skip this condescending condemnation? It's worthy of someone… still in school.
* Finally, I appreciate your enhancing of the Literature Section.
Enough said.
Craig zimmerman 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to recent edits

message: feel free to add examples from the Quran, we can then change the section title to "Scriptural". But don't retell the entire content of the stories, just briefly point out the dystheistic element.  Even that would strictly need a clean source (it's not good enough that just you happen to think God looks bad), but I'm not going to be a prick over that, the argument is trivial enough in most cases.  dab (𒁳) 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's fine; as soon as you bring up actual references to the Quran, we can change the heading. As it is, all we do discuss is the Old Testament, so "Biblical" is good enough. dab (𒁳) 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is all good material. I would like to fold it into the Dystheism article, particularly in the section devoted to scriptural examples of God being evil. I'm not sure yet how to structure it but I will try to give this material its due. Thanks. Craig zimmerman 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Biblical evidence"

message: I am confounded by the recent edits undertaken by Thaddeus Frye that separate out "possible" examples of dystheism. The motivation behind these edits seems to be that the article was long and needed breaking up, but the manner in which this breakout was done makes no sense.
First, Thaddeus, you injected mention of Koons by name in the very first sentence. OK, fine, but you do not cite Koons' credentials or say who he is at that point. Discussion of Koons was already in place in the terminology section. If there is a reason to mention Koons by name upfront, I don't see what it is. He is an accredited professor but otherwise not of considerable note, except perhaps as the originator of this term in a formal sense. Note that he doesn't seem to have an entry of his own here. If Koons were a person of major notability, then mentioning his name in the first sentence of this article would make sense, as it would be a reference point to a person of note for something other than the coining of this term. Otherwise, it is injected there artificially.
Second, the breakout of the "possible" examples into a separate article. Length considerations aside, the very name of this new article, and the citation that begins it, skew its content. There is a term, defined by an academic, that describes a particular attitude towards God. Whether or not an action or a composed essay or song is an example of that attitude is not something dependent upon validation from the originator of the term! So what is the rationale behind saying that an example evincing that attitude is merely a "possible" example because it hasn't been validated by the originator of the term?
These edits were apparently not done with care: there was already a See also section but this new article was put into a new See also section by itself. I will perform the following edits to clean this up:
# Remove references to Koons' name in the introductory sentence. 
# Rename the Possible examples of dystheism article to more accurately reflect its content and intent.
# Remove the superfluous "although they have not been discussed by Koons" comment. An example does not need to have been cleared by the originator of a term to be associated with that term.
# Fix the See also section in the base article.
Craig zimmerman 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, dab, for getting this done quicker than I could. :-) Craig zimmerman 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the section has issues (, ), but they should be addressed here, in context. --dab (𒁳) 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breakout of "possible examples"

message: A user just deleted a bunch of text under the guise of "original research" and then placed an AfD tag on the article.  At this point, I think neither is correct and there appears to be an agenda.  However, before I revert the info, I thought it should be talked about first.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long-standing doubts if the existence of this article separate from theodicy or problem of evil is justified. But I will argue that deletion would be excessive, it should at least remain a redirect. Your submission to AfD is of course valid, and we'll just have to see how it turns out. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: So this article appears to be suffering from lack of sources. And now my article on misotheism (which has plenty of entries in dictionaries all of the world and web) has been deleted and the link redirected to an article now that is going to be potentially deleted. How lovely. So...
As such should there not be at least some entry somewhere in wikipedia addressing the ancient concept of the hatred of the God or Gods? I mean misotheism in an entry on the American sub-Standard Dictionary.
And Webster of course too.
LoveMonkey 13:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: misotheism hasn't been "deleted", it has been transwikied to :wikt:misotheism as a dictionary definition. You may want to look at history of atheism. The "ancient" concept  of dustheismos / misotheismos were in fact identical to the "ancient" concept of atheismos, and the sentiment as found in e.g. The Oresteia is duly addressed, and discussion can be extended indefinitely, in context, at existing articles, without the need to create stub articles on random neologisms. See also: History_of_atheism#Classical_Greece_and_Rome, Euthyphro dilemma, Epicureanism, Polytheism, Demon.  dab (𒁳) 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: the misotheism article has not been deleted. This article is up for deletion at the moment, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dystheism. The term "dystheism" is a nonce word (as is misotheism), and serious discussion of the issues involved should reside at titles with better credibility). dab (𒁳) 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: are you feeling alright? If you have a point to make, feel free to make it, but please don't distract from a debate with nonsense postings. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonce words frequently arise through the combination of an existing word with a familiar prefix or suffix. But fair enough, I am not going to insist it is one. It is sufficient to note that it is "Obs. rare." Nonce or not, there is no reason to have an article on it. It is unreasonable to ask for citation that a given word was "coined for the nonce". A nonce word is usually not listed in dictionaries or wordlists, so it would be similar to ask for citation that a given opinion is unnotable. Since misotheism is listed in OED, and as rare rather than nonce-wd, I will grant you that if may have risen (only just) above the "nonce" threshold (examples for actual nonce words listed in the OED are argentocracy   , archbishopess, bestialist, bucolism). If we are going to keep this article separate, it may in fact be better to move it to misotheism.    dab (𒁳) 08:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alright the hatred of God stuff

message: Emil Cioran is a philosopher of such a movement. This issue might be linguistic.
LoveMonkey 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is indeed "linguistic" in the sense of terminological. Cioran's views apparently belong under Existentialism, and perhaps under Demiurge. Per WP:SYN you cannot create a new concept on Wikipedia by original synthesis of various other topics. This is exactly what is going on here. Craig Zimmerman is discussing the idea of "Maltheism" that his dad developed on Usenet 1985-1986. We added some hand-waving to make it appear more academic. This sort of thing is alright on Usenet, but not on Wikipedia. It might be alright on wikibooks. You need to understand that this entire topic is based around a misunderstanding of monotheism: dystheism is nothing special at all in polytheism. Polytheistic gods can be "good" or "evil", or anything in between. The emergence of moral absolutes of good and evil is directly coupled to monotheistic "God" as summum bonum. If you reject such an inherently good God, you just regress to polytheism, or if you prefer, to dualism (ditheism; hence Cioran's reference to demiurge): this is your choice: either you reject that there is any notion of absolute good at all, and you go to polytheism or antitheism, or you accept a notion of absolute good, but prefer not to call it "God", in which case you go to dualism ("God" vs. Good rather than "God"=Good vs. Evil. Pure terminology). That's it. There is no room for "maltheism" in between these options. The separate notion of "maltheism" is a product of amateur usenet philosophy. We cannot cover that, unless for some reason Craig's blog should become an internet meme at some point, in which case we will discuss it as in :Category:Internet memes. dab (𒁳) 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As a philosophy

message: right, since there is really nobody to be found that ever held this position in seriousness (Descartes was at least accused of holding it, by disingenious critics), I decided to look at Paul Zimmerman's 1985 postings.  
It appears he posted this on 13 August, on  net.origins speaking of a "Damager-God". 
It seems the original post (292@pyuxn.UUCP) was deleted from the archive because of an accidential reposting on 16 August, so that the thread appears to begin with Beth Christy's reply Sh*t.  If this wasn't satire, then *something* evil sure hurt this boy.  Hang in there, Paul.  Take it slow'n'easy. 
The introduction of the term "maltheistic" is as follows:
:  I wonder why I capitalize words like God and He and His when referring to this monster.  Just a bad habit, I guess.  I wish there were letters smaller than lower case with which to begin His name.  Unfortunately, my "religion" as it were (call it "maltheism" if you like) offers little hope, little advice as to what we can do in the face of a hideous evil monster Damager-God 
PZ cites as his inspiration a 31 December 1983 post  by Tim Maroney (tim@unc.uucp , d. 2003)
Discussion of this continues into November. PZ presents an argument that is very naive, and appears very emotional, essentially a rant by an oedipal youth. It is difficult to say, of course, if this is Usenet trolling or genuine emotion, but I would tend towards considering it genuine. Skipping over all the fallacies (which were immediately pointed out by usenet participants at the time), what is left is in fact proper misotheism ("God is an asshole") combined with unreflected Bible-centricity (why accept the account in the Bible as fact? - this was Maroney's hypothetical premise, now taken grimly for granted). This sentiment, of course, is nothing new. People have cursed the gods since antiquity, and PZ finds himself in the company of the "goðlauss vikings". Atheism in Antiquity never meant denying the gods' existence. It meant renouncing them. PZ's "maltheism" is consequently nothing more and nothing less than re-enactment of pre-monotheistic atheism discussed at history of atheism. PZ presents basically the usenet version of the premises to Answer to Job. PZ's "maltheism" not for a minute questions Biblical inerrancy (nor, apparently, divine omnipotence): all the events of the Hebrew Bible are factual, but rather than moving forward in time towards monotheistic Judaism, or Christianity, PZ moves backward in time, re-discovering Ancient Near Eastern religion, where, of course, the gods were indeed not much more than powerful bullies that needed to be pacified somehow. His 'advice',
:The best we can hope to do is fight Him at every turn, gain some happiness against His will, grapple with Him for it every chance we get, and spit in His face as we do it, 
echoes Goethe's Prometheus, his conclusion, however, 
:Perhaps someday science will discover a way to shred the fabric of space-time and destroy His entropic evil. 
is pure Gnostic dualism. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Zimmerman

message: The Tim Maroney lead might still lead to 'encyclopedic' discussion as a topic of usenet philosophy. The article is linked from Brahms Gang, and might be made an article along similarl lines as Rich Rosen. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tim Maroney

message: Hey dab we might ought to put a passing mention in the article that the vilification of the cosmos and creation was addressed by Plotinus. Plotinus was pretty direct that 
the nous, was the demiurge. It was a component in the person or being that allowed them to perceive order. As such the demiurge could not be evil because without it, one could not perceive beauty and or the good.
LoveMonkey 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoplatonisms' answer to Gnosticism

message: Of course after this we have Eastern Orthodoxy's answer to Neoplatonism.
Which was that the substance/ousia of God is incomprehenisible and is not energy.
And then the Eastern Orthodox answer to Gnosticism was "show me the money" or simply theoria. That is yes in Orthodoxy one is suppose to see the God and many have. But no you don't get to see God if you blasphemy God-the Holy Spirit (AKA Blasphemy life/existence) which most of what we call gnosticism falls under.
In the case of Christianity the hypostasises/existences/realities of God and the essence or substance of the God are not the same as in Hellenic philosophy and or Babylonian/Persian anti-Hellenic, anti-Hebrew cult nonmeclatures. As for Mr Zimmerman, rather you believe it or not I am quite honored that you even acknowledged me. You are after all very fascinating to say the least. I apologize if I seem like a broken record. I have no intention to engage you (beyond say aphorism and light conversation). Please just ignore me, I will go away ;>)
LoveMonkey 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LoveMonkey, I was merely acknowledging your work on the original misotheism article. Your comments about me notwithstanding, realize that it was my father Paul to whom Dab was refering in quoting his original internet sentiments, as rough and raw as they were. (I'm confused as to why that would be called an "oedipal rant," except for purposes of insult, but I assure you he endured far worse in his lifetime. No matter.) My point was to highlight that merely hating God is not the same as judging him as evil, and the attempt to jam the two together, as much as some people seem to want all of Wikipedia to be reduced to one single article, may be misguided if a distinction is not properly established. Many examples of "dystheistic" attitudes do not express hatred towards God. In some cases, quite the opposite, as if the Stockholm Syndrome had taken hold. The article here on misogyny does not associate misogyny in general with the idea some might have that women are innately evil. The axis of hatred and the axis of judging relative good or evil quality are two separate axes (to grind). If the two ideas are to be combined into one article, proper distinction needs to be made, that's all I'm saying. Craig zimmerman 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Craig, I have no intention to insult you or your father. I do in fact recognize rants past of my own in his 1985 outburst. He posted them on Usenet, which was the proper venue for the genre. I do suppose he was still rather young at the time (in his 20s?, and that you are in your own 20s now?). I admit that my review above reflects my personal judgement more than would be strictly needed for the editing process, but I wanted to leave document my trail of thought and research on this. I wish you the best for your maltheism blog, but you need to recognize that the rules for Wikipedia articles are rather more strict than for either Usenet or blogs. Which is the reason for Wikipedia's prestige, such as it is, and in turn the reason why you are interested on having the term featured on Wikipedia in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodoxy

message: Hey anybody notice that the above argument (Neoplatonisms' answer to Gnosticism) was made by Tertullian in the abraxas article.
LoveMonkey 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tertullian

message: I am stating this too because I have yet to still create a Russian Idealism article that really clarifies that the nous is both reason and intuition. I need the misotheism article to tie into and or cover this part of the vilification of perception. But it would be nice if the article was balanced and cover both sides hate and apology. So that the idealism and other philosophy articles that address these concerns could more easily tie into this one. The naming of the article as misotheism is most definitely a start. And then allow a standard or uniformity to the topic of the hatred of the God or the Gods.
I wonder how Set and Apepi would fit into the article though?
LoveMonkey 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Idealism

message: Could we also balance this with Philosophical skepticism?
LoveMonkey 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the realm of Platonic Philosophy Good and Beauty are considered intrinsic (essentialism and idealism) (along the lines of necessitarianism). The concept is not a validation of freewill (Libertarianism (metaphysics)) in that people are designed by their creator to seek Good and Beauty (the knowable and true). To seek Good and Beauty is to seek the truth. Since these are the highest values one seeks them and thus one then seeks them in their purest form which is the monad or the Good above the Demiurge. What I am trying to do is express that these arguments have already been made (though under different verbiage) and that we can add the already defined arguments here under those traditions and therefore side step the whole NPOV and OR issues that have hurt the "topics" in the past.
LoveMonkey 12:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophical skepticism

message: Hello. I am an anonymous editor. My edits on "Divine malevolence in Scripture" were wrongly branded as "vandalism". I was merely clarifying a few sections and deleting those which said nothing about divine malevolence. This included deleting the secion on the epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, as it contained such a grave misinterpretation of the Word of God that I thought it would leave the section cumbersome if I was to clarify this misinterpretation.
:Hello, anonymous editor. (Why anonymous?) Your edits were correctly branded as vandalism. You did not "clarify," you injected a eutheistic bias to accommodate your own beliefs about God. "Such a grave misinterpretation of the word of God" - what you are saying is that your interpretation of the "Word of God" is not the same as the one others might have, branding interpretations contrary to yours as wrong. The whole point of this article is to describe an alternative perspective quite different from the common eutheistic/theophilic interpretation you espouse. Trying to make the article fit your beliefs as a default is thus inappropriate. As such, your deletions and edits represent a violation of NPOV and will be again reverted. Please do not do this again. Thank you. Craig zimmerman (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: The same anonymous editor above who vandalized the page several times apparently just introduced a  tag on the page, declaring that the neutrality of the article is in dispute. Let us forget for the moment the laborious efforts of multiple editors including myself, Dab, and LoveMonkey to ensure that this page's content was NPOV-compliant. Not to pat ourselves on our respective backs, but much work went into ensuring that the page presented a neutral position about anti-God sentiment in general, without advocating or biasing anything in particular.
So what then is the dispute then about the page's neutrality? We don't know, because the vandal did a hit-and-run, slapping the tag on the page but not providing any commentary or support for his notion that the page violated NPOV guidelines. In reality, it is the vandal whose modifications to the page violated NPOV. (Since this vandal chooses to be anonymous I believe it is appropriate to refer to him using a label descriptive of his actions until he identifies himself.) His complaint is that what is written on this page is "a grave misinterpretation of the Word of God." By this he appears to mean that the interpretation presented is the position associated with misotheism, maltheism, or dystheism, not the "accepted" position of eutheists/theophiles. And that is as it should be - this is not a page devoted to Christian theology, but to a position directly counter to such theology. It is reasonable to say what Christian or other theologies assert and contrast that to a misotheistic/dystheistic position, and that is indeed what we do.
The vandal's actions are not unlike someone editing, e.g., the Satanism page and saying "but Satan is evil, God said this, and to think otherwise is wrong." Or, to give another example, visiting the Judaism page and saying "but Jews deny the divinity of Jesus Christ who is their messiah, and thus are condemned in the sight of God." The vandal's actions represent an inappropriate biasing of the content to please his point of view. Neutrality, to him, would apparently mean accepting his position as the default. For this reason, the claim that the article is not neutral is invalid.
I will leave the  tag on the page for another week and remove the tag if no rebuttal is forthcoming. Craig zimmerman (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: The above label [  ] is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic.
Since the person who inserted this tag did no such thing, I will change the tag to  as also described on Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute. Craig zimmerman (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute?

message: :Post-theism accepts the validity of the concept of God as inducing morality at a certain stage of human development, but postulates a stage where morality can exist without support in religious cult, rendering the concept of God superfluous.
DAB, while your new article on this subject is interesting, I don't get what relevance it has to the subjects of misotheism, dystheism, or maltheism. This article is about a particular attitude regarding the goodness of God, that being the notion that he isn't good after all. Your statements on post-theism, though again interesting, don't appear to fit in with what is being talked about here. I leave it to you to defend the idea that this reference belongs here or to modify the reference to give it relevance. Thanks. Craig zimmerman (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-theism

message: "Although God is considered to have been depicted in the New Testament as "kinder and gentler" than his characterization in the Old Testament, this interpretation is ultimately inconsistent with what the text says about his behavior"
Following this are three statements taken from the letters and from Acts and Revelations. While these represent less "kinder and gentler" behaviours the Gnostic movements generally rejected both the Peter and Pauline communities and texts. So, in their eyes there would be no contradiction (and these passages if anything would strengthen their claim that Orthodox communities serve the Demiurge.
As Gnostic communities would likely have not had access to, or accepted these texts as valid, the point fails to show any internal inconsistency in the Gnostic interpretation (which seems to be what is being implied by the author). The passage should be removed or amended to take into account the point made here.
--Hrimpurstala (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnostic views and the Canonical New Testament

message: I am unsure in which section, but surely Terry Pratchetts parody novel Small Gods deserves a nod somewhere, as it is all about gods being submitted to the ignominy of falling into disbelief... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Gods 

message: "A related concept is dystheism (Greek δύσθεος "ungodly")"
Misotheism and dystheism aren't related at all. The former says that the believer hates God, the latter says the believer thinks God is evil. Two different concepts. Give dystheism its own page. 86.128.76.10 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not related 

message: we should just do a section about misotheism in television. Id also just like to give one example of misotheism in a show called Monkey Magic. Misotheism is a prevalent theme in Monkey Magic. Not trolling btw. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwuQRUuZ76w
69.106.224.237 (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  television 

message: When I first came across this term today, my first thought was, "Oh, it must have something to do with the worship of miso soup." LOL  —  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny... 

message: There used to be a separate article for Maltheism, but it has been turned into a redirect (check the history). But this page doesn't even properly mention maltheism – there are only two instances of the word "maltheistic" in the article. Whatever useful information was in that article should be merged into here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maltheism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Misotheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203180444/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec19.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec19.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203201814/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec20.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec20.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203180444/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec19.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec19.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041031200636/http://www.philosophers.co.uk/portal_article.php?id=23 to http://www.philosophers.co.uk/portal_article.php?id=23
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203180444/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec19.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec19.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203201814/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec20.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec20.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041031200636/http://www.philosophers.co.uk/portal_article.php?id=23 to http://www.philosophers.co.uk/portal_article.php?id=23
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Misotheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929065752/http://www.1913dictionary.com/dictionary/word/misotheism/ to http://www.1913dictionary.com/dictionary/word/misotheism/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113234311/http://www.randynewman.com/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/lyricssailaway to http://www.randynewman.com/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/lyricssailaway
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060916122845/http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/museums/magnt/education/pdf/natsiaa_education_resource.pdf to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/museums/magnt/education/pdf/natsiaa_education_resource.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304025146/http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/wiesel/transcript.shtml to http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/wiesel/transcript.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113234311/http://www.randynewman.com/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/lyricssailaway to http://www.randynewman.com/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/lyricssailaway
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018031418/http://www.goatstar.org/atrocities-committed-or-commanded-by-god/ to http://www.goatstar.org/atrocities-committed-or-commanded-by-god/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)