Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll

message: *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
"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)
replies: text: I'm not real sure I understand that. I will say again, the usage cited here is perfectly acceptable. The only refernce source I diagree with is encarta. Sam Spade 06:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion of options in poll

message: *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, encyclopedia.com or Encyclopædia Britannica in this entry and others.
#Sam Spade 03:28, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: What was there a general agreement about, might I ask? Sam Spade 05:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "god and/or gods encompasses all spiritual entities rejected by atheists." "Agree": 32; "Disagree": 4. - snoyes 06:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some discussion between Bryan and Sam

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: run-off election/Compromise?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Foolishness and vanity

message: :So the question hinges on whether God is a god? Mark Richards 07:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: mine (absolute infinite) isn't. Sam Spade 08:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: is God a god?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Names for God

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