Template talk:God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] YES!!!
Much needed template... hopefully this will also lead to some increased consistency between the God-related articles. In any case, great work! --Merzul 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] General articles...
Where would the following more general articles fit?
I think they are quite important and sub-articles of the God article. --Merzul 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christianity
[edit] Big template
The template is getting big, which is a problem if it is to be appended to religion-specific articles, which commonly feature images, templates etc aplenty, and which can do without an additional template, especially such a big one.
One option would be to change it from Vertical to horizontal, so that it lies at the foot of the page. Thought? Sfacets 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
God exists in every way! Look around you! Do you think all this world and the complexity of us got here in a big bang? I don't think so. You need to repent of your sins and change from you evil ways! If you feel left out and alone don't worry! God is here! He will comfort you in every way and bring you peace in your heart! God sent his one and only Son to die on the cross for your sins. His name was Jesus. Jesus was perfect and blameless. He died for you! The very least thing you can do is live you life for Him! Stop doubting, and believe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.215.99 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant
Much of this is redundant with other templates, such as {{Belief systems}}. It also has a large footprint, and leads to problems with placement of images on the page to avoid large blocks of whitespace. We should trim several of the links from this template, or make it a horizontal template for the bottom of the page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-03 18:06Z
- While I liked the template in the beginning, and it is nice on some pages like God, the whole navigation template stuff is starting to get worse than Google AdSense. I will look at the articles were this is used and see, if this can't be trimmed down to focus on the actual subarticles of the God article, and then split out the conceptions of god into a template of its own, perhaps? --Merzul 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is kind of a terrible template...
... don't you think? The Christian-centrism and presumptiveness is appalling, and most of the topics are non-essential (Alaha? God the Sustainer? Holy Spirit? Lord?) or irrelevant (Esotericism? Hermeticism? Philosophy? Chaos?). Many of the links are broken, and random inconsistent interjections of Chinese help cross the line from obscurity to opaqueness. Seriously, you take the time to include Monad and Baal, but don't even have a link to Deity or Goddess? Plus it's ugly. -Silence 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I wouldn't have thought that God needed a template
I wouldn't have thought that God needed a template but now that I think about it, it seems logical, I would also like to point out that there are a lot more things on the template than I thought there would be. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Which articles should have this template?
Can this template go on any article related to God, or only on articles which are listed on the template itself? Not a dog 03:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the article A Course in Miracles an appropriate article for the template? To reiterate the above question, what is the purpose of the template and which articles should it be in? What function does it serve?—Who123 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Typically, articles include templates in which they are mentioned. hmwithtalk 15:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Why ask the question above and then answer it yourself now??? I can not find the WP policy on this. Would you mind pointing it out? Thanks.—Who123 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Relax. I didn't answer it myself. hmwith answered it, and I applied that answer to the case (ACIM) that you brought up here. What's the problem? Not a dog 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I am relaxed. I missed that one comment was by hmwith. I would still like to see the WP policy on this and similar templates. Have a great day!—Who123 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Template bias towards monotheism - rename ?
The template is "God" - given we have documentary evidence that man has invented many "Gods" over the years is kind of a bias to only say "God" as if that was either one god or one conceptual archetype of what was god. I suggest that it is renamed to "Deities" Ttiotsw 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- A template for polytheistic gods would be called Template:Gods. "God" suggests monotheism. hmwith 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Err ? Yes, that's the point - we have evidence that humanity has invented lots of gods over time thus the only verifiable word to represent this should be "Gods" (or rather Deities as it has a nicer ring). Ttiotsw 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then it should say "part of a series of gods" or "part of a series of deities", rather than "part of a series of God". hmwith 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Before changing it, I would like to know if anyone believes the title should be "God" instead of "Gods," and any arguments for a singular title. --Ned Pierce 12:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There seems to be no objective to changing it, Ned. Perhaps "Deities" is more appropriate because I sense that many people of faith would take objection to there being more than one God. Jasonid 05:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Indeed, there is a clear bias. The "God" title, which appears above polytheism and pantheism, among others, links to an article that begins: "God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions." I'm changing it to Deities. Mdiamante (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Where is YH-H ?
And Elohim ? and God in Judaism ? etc. - Inyan
- Been asking that same question for about 2000 years and still no answer ! See Mythology and Legend. Ttiotsw 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Attention
This template is so great that it must be fully protected!--Angel David 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Thought ?
Would it be possible to add New Thought (Unity, Religious Science,Divine Science) to the Template. How does one go about this I'm new to this. Also just for the record "New Age" is not New Thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.250.164 (talk) 04:56, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Enlightenment
It is about time this template had an Image. It is requested not to take it away.--Angel David 21:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that it be removed, for a variety of reasons, mainly that there is no universal shared image of what God is or of how he ought to be represented. The earlier attempts to provide an image for God here were strangely Judeo-Christian-centric; that's odd considering that their God forbids them to create images of him, don't you think? :-) The image here seems to lean towards a "sky God" orientation, which contradicts the images of beliefs that think of God as an earth God/Goddess, or as a being without regard to any particular space, up or down, air, sea or land. I have to agree with the contributor who asked why we need an image of God, especially since he is supposed to transcend imagery and even forbids his devotees (in some systems) from creating an image of him. Craig zimmerman 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I love the Power of the image of light. I study New Thought (Unity, Religious Science).It is all about God within but I just love the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.147.185 (talk) 20:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees that God is a source of light. The title "light bearer" is actually associated with Lucifer, who was opposed to God. It is invalid to assume that all people who believe in the existence of God share the positive light-offering image of him. The point is still that there is no single universally valid representation of God that all people would concur with. In fact, it is the very fact that each group has a different image of him (even those groups that are told NOT to have images of him!), and that these groups argue endlessly about the differences between those images to the point of violence, which is the source of the most heinous evils in our world. (And the people who say "let's all try to have one image of him" cause even more of this kind of damage in the end.) I still say no image, please. Craig zimmerman 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I love the image I do not belive in the literal, let's lighten up (no pun intended). I believe all evil, is the absence of God (light). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.67.165 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Thought
I added New Thought very specific belief system. I hope i changed in in the correct manner. Love the image--JGG59,25 August 2007
[edit] template image
i want the following to be added instead of some clouds, hehe: 
very funny, I thought the sky image was a great representation not of God Himself but it is instinctual of human beings to aim toward the sky for God, no one looks for God underground so I don't see why it doesn't fit as an image (again not of direct representation) anyway thats my opinion Habibko 03:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Monolatry
Should Monolatry be included in the list of 'general approaches'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Several things wrong with this template
This template shows a serious bias towards the Christian view of God, being one single God (the title of the template) as well as the idea of heavens and holy light (the propagandized image), which have nothing to do with God. I think this needs to be changed to a more neutral title and image, reflecting a balance between the different topics covered by the template. Jasonid 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the template may be better off with no image. As for "single", like the God article, it is intended to be about monotheistic God, see the disambiguation notice there. Other notions can be addressed in other templates, such as {{Middle Eastern deities}}. Maybe this should be the template on "theism", not the template of "God", and God linked not as the template's title, but as a topic in theism. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree, many other generic templates such as {{Template:Discrimination}}, {{Template:Freedom}}, {{Template:Ethics}} have no picture, these one shouldn't have one since its topic has plenty of different descriptions.--Andersmusician VOTE 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the image, since it's inappropriate for at least half the entries listed.
It seems to me this template lacks focus. Ahura Mazda, OK. Holy Trinity, yes. Allah, Demiurge, God in Sikhism, Jah, Tetragrammaton, Supreme Being, Alpha and Omega, the Absolute. etc., etc. Good. But Amaterasu Omikami and Susanoo? (With Susanoo even placed out of alpha order in order to shoehorn him in some way that made sense.) Kami in general? (More like nature spirits than Gods.) Nüwa? Devas, but not Brahma? SUMMUM, a truly fringe notion?
These are not ideas in the same category. Specific gods of polytheistic religions are not conceptually similar to the transcendent divinities of monotheist, or even dualist religions. Most of the time in polytheistic religions, even the supreme god doesn't take on any of the characteristics of the transcendent deity even if (like Zeus) he might be occasionally called "God".
The idea of a transcendent, universal God, variously conceived and approached, needs to be treated as its own subject. Individual deities and culture heroes of polytheistic and pantheistic religions don't fit in, worthy as they might be of coverage. Perhaps there's some other class for which a template can be made that applies to them. But this isn't it, unless we're willing to extend it indefinitely. There needs to be some kind of bound set on what this template is about, and there doesn't seem to be one just now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I like the picture. Some time people have just got to loosen up and relax.66.108.111.91 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree the template is unfocussed. The "specific conceptions" part is mostly just clutter. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Image
Since my old image was removed I added a new one, a better one, a fair one, a non-disputable one. Isn't it great? Or is it?--Angel David 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- well, I suppose "God" just doesn't lend himself well to images (aniconism and stuff). Your image is great for "religion" but somehow doesn't quite do the job here... Let me say that I liked the clouds though. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can someone provide an Image to this template. It's in bad need of an image.--Angel David 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- An image probably won't be possible because it would be inherently POV as to whose god Wikipedia is supporting. Best to leave it without an image. T Rex | talk 03:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- the current "creation of Adam" image isn't terrible, but I really see no reason at all why this template should be "in bad need of an image" (why? images need to fulfill some function, wikipedia isn't flickr.com) dab (𒁳) 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's also not a question of supporting one god or another; it's applicability to the subject. None of the images so far relate to the infobox as characterized by the links it contains. If the clouds were, as I said, inappropriate for "at least half" of them, then the Sistine Chapel pertains to even fewer than that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- the current "creation of Adam" image isn't terrible, but I really see no reason at all why this template should be "in bad need of an image" (why? images need to fulfill some function, wikipedia isn't flickr.com) dab (𒁳) 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Add Immanence?
I notice that the 'God' side box isn't at the immanence page, nor is Immanence included in the box. Since Immanence is the counterpart of 'Transcendence' (yes?) making those two additions seems reasonable, but I don't know how to do either. Any help anyone?
Hope so!
john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.238.136 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How about an invisble image
You know, since God's invisible--Angel David (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was emoved again. Stop removing an image when I put it in. Nothing is inappropriate a bout these pictures. This template is in bad need of an image!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now someone put up an image of a universal picture please!--Angel David (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Stop removing an image when I put it in" - As soon as you stop adding pointless and/or inappropriate images.
- "This template is in bad need of an image!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - Why is it so important for there to be an image? Ilkali (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- One image probably wouldn't fit every single conception of God there is out there, so we're probably better off without one. Midorihana~いいですね？ 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It needs to look pretty so it needs oh I don't know....an image!--Angel David (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- several other templates use no images, such as {{discrimination}} {{politics}} {{Sociology}} and many more which don't refer to non-narrow topics (present both in western and eastern cultures).BTW wikipedia is neutral --190.43.9.158 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Science
I'm replacing "God gene" with neurotheology, which encompasses the former premise as well as other scientific theories, and is a fuller article. Mdiamante (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Deities"
Mdiamante, if you want to do a {{Theism}} template on theism in general, do go ahead, but it won't do to change the scope of this template so drastically without discussion or justificatino. dab (𒁳) 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion's right above here. This template includes subjects such as polytheism and pantheism, which are not subsets of the concept of God. Here's the first sentence of the "God" article:
- God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and overseer of the universe.
- Not much place for polytheistism-based gods such as Athena or Osiris there.
- And here's the first sentence of "Deities":
- A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
- "God" fits in here, and so do polytheism-based deities. Ergo, "Deities" is, IMO, a much fairer title for the template. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
no way. You want to do a template on "Deities", do it. But this is the template on "God". Note we already have {{Paganism}} and {{Theism}}, so I think your new template may be somewhat redundant. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Deities" is not synonymous with "paganism"; a monotheistic deity such as Jehovah is part of a discussion on deities in general. That's why "monotheism" is one of the many items in this template. And if "Deities" and "Theism" is redundant, than surely "God" and "Theism" is also. You have not offered any specific reasons as to why "Deities" is not a more appropriate title, and no one else has objected, so I'm reverting it. Please make some specific arguments for a "Template:God" before reverting. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, I think it might be worth having a template on God. On the other, I think most/many of the places where this template is used are actually about deities in general and not God specifically (eg: Agnosticism, Monism, Polytheism, Deity, Personal god). My vote is for keeping this template focused on God, and removing links to and from inappropriate articles. Ilkali (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, though. If "most/many of the places where this template is used are actually about deities in general and not God specifically", wouldn't it make sense to keep this a "Deities" template, and leave the "God" one for other, specifically monotheistic articles? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- No. This template has a history of edits and discussions made in a specific context, which you're proposing to divorce them from. You're talking about changing a template from X to Y and then making a new X, and it makes much more sense to just create a Y from scratch. Ilkali (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, that's a fair point. Should the template look like this, then?
-
-
-
-
Part of a series on God
Specific conceptions
Names · "God" · Existence · Gender
Creator · Architect · Demiurge · Sustainer
Lord · Father · Monad · Oneness
Supreme Being · The All · Personal
Unitarianism · Ditheism · Trinity
Omniscience · Omnipotence
Omnipresence · Omnibenevolence
in Bahá'í · in Buddhism · in Christianity
in Hinduism · in Islam · in Judaism
in Sikhism
-
-
-
-
- This would solve the problem of pantheism and other traditions being put under the "God" title without making redundancies with Template:Theism. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You suggest something like this, then:
-
-
-
| Part of a series on |
| God |
|---|
|
Specific conceptions Experience and practices Related topics |
With the template removed from such pages as polytheism and agnosticism? That would seem a good fit to me. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, something along those lines. We could discuss the possible need for a Deities template thereafter. Ilkali (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed all approaches not directly associated with monotheism, as well as the template from those pages, but wasn't able to move the template back to Template:God. Maybe the changes are too recent? Mdiamante (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nice shootin, Tex, but you took out a lot of terms that are nowhere discussed in this discussion- a little overkill, don't ya think?
We should have a discussion on each term and decide that way which one should stay and which ones should go, and say why.
Here are the terms you took out, lets talk about this.
[edit] * Agnosticism *
Defined relative to gods, not God specifically. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I could agree with this not being there as it can be about anything. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] * Atheism *
See agnosticism. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is almost always in reference to "God" but could be about anything. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
keep—Preceding unsigned comment added by someone (talk • contribs)
I agree to keep as well. Atheism is much more clearly defined than agnosticism, it's undecided versus "I definitely do not believe in god." -Mike Payne (T • C) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's not really the dichotomy here. The issue isn't about how well defined either is, but how reasonably we could describe either as an approach to thinking about God. Since atheism isn't specific to God, I would generally favor not including it. If we include atheism, there's no reason not to include agnosticism. Ilkali (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- From the leader of atheism: "Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." How is that not a clear cut way of looking at the existence of god? Realistically, I don't understand why agnosticism isn't included either... There's no explanation here unless I'm missing it... -Mike Payne (T • C) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Note to self - I've reconsidered "Agnosticism" as it's too general. Somebody can say they are agnostic on 'x' e.g. "Operating System agnostic", whereas Atheist is only ever used in conjunction with "God". Remembering that many years ago "Atheist" was also a charge used against people who actually believed in a God but just not the God of the people who were in charge. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- "Atheist is only ever used in conjunction with 'God'": Er, no. Read the intro paragraphs of atheism; "God" does not appear. Atheism is lack of belief in any gods, and is therefore, for the same reason you gave for agnosticism, too broad for this specifically monotheistic template. Mdiamante (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- A good point so I have changed the Atheism article to correctly match the reference provided which is from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which says "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.". Note the use of singular "God". Thanks for highlighting that. On that basis can you please self revert back to my edit ? Ttiotsw (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but you are turning the discussion upside down. Atheist belief in no god (intentional lower case); neither from a polytheistic (e.g. Zeus, Hera, Artemis) nor from a monotheistic system (God, Allah, Jahweh). Saying that atheist only do not believe in God (ie the Christian monotheistic God) makes no sense whatsoever. Arnoutf (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- But it does make sense if you look at the historical use of the word "Atheism". It was used against people who did not believe in a specific god even though they believed in another god. The Routledge reference and many other references refer to "God" i.e. capital 'G' as well as "god" (lowercase 'g'). That Atheism also happens to be applicable to all gods too doesn't make it less relevant for this template as the majority of references refer to "God" or "god". Therefore we have both contemporary and historical uses that make this a valid "General approach" to the concept of a monotheism god (irrespective of case). Ttiotsw (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- The general modern religions are monotheistic. From that point of view the singular God is fine. However atheism should not be reported from a religious point of view only but also from its own point of view. (Atheists sometimes argue that atheism is nothing different from monotheism except from eliminating one more god.) Majority view and history are fairly irrelevant (if we used that argument we would still consider the world a disc). Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- You were making sense until the last sentence when you inserted a red herring. Wikipedia does report the majority view, and the historical view. We back up our text with references to reliable sources. That aside, the answer is to change the wording "General approaches" to not be "General" but to ONLY include the theistic point of view. Then I have no problems.
- In the end what is "Atheism" but a position regarding "God" but it certainly isn't a Theistic view. It also is a position regarding any god in general but we have many references that say "God" and they mean God with a capital G.
- The Template fails to be specific in targeting only "God" but the Wiki software automatically capitalises the first letter 'g'. If the capitalisation of the word is important then we must mention this. Also "Template:Deities" redirects to this template. That needs to be dropped if we're only talking about monotheistic approaches.
- Atheism is not a approach to Christianity and so it would not be added to the Christianity template but it is an approach to "God". See the problem ? This is the conundrum I have in that the general approach of "Atheism" as a concept pre-dates the major religions, Christianity and Islam, by many centuries and certainly pre-dates the Deism of the modern era.
- I suggest the following; Change "General approaches" to "Theistic views" (or similar), delete the redirect on "Template:Deities" and comment about the technical issue of "Template:god" verses "Template:God". Ttiotsw (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- The general modern religions are monotheistic. From that point of view the singular God is fine. However atheism should not be reported from a religious point of view only but also from its own point of view. (Atheists sometimes argue that atheism is nothing different from monotheism except from eliminating one more god.) Majority view and history are fairly irrelevant (if we used that argument we would still consider the world a disc). Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- But it does make sense if you look at the historical use of the word "Atheism". It was used against people who did not believe in a specific god even though they believed in another god. The Routledge reference and many other references refer to "God" i.e. capital 'G' as well as "god" (lowercase 'g'). That Atheism also happens to be applicable to all gods too doesn't make it less relevant for this template as the majority of references refer to "God" or "god". Therefore we have both contemporary and historical uses that make this a valid "General approach" to the concept of a monotheism god (irrespective of case). Ttiotsw (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but you are turning the discussion upside down. Atheist belief in no god (intentional lower case); neither from a polytheistic (e.g. Zeus, Hera, Artemis) nor from a monotheistic system (God, Allah, Jahweh). Saying that atheist only do not believe in God (ie the Christian monotheistic God) makes no sense whatsoever. Arnoutf (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- A good point so I have changed the Atheism article to correctly match the reference provided which is from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which says "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.". Note the use of singular "God". Thanks for highlighting that. On that basis can you please self revert back to my edit ? Ttiotsw (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- What about the addition of atheism under the "related topics" section? -Mike Payne (T • C) 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] * Ignosticism *
Wikipedia's article is specific to God, but I'm not sure that's not just the result of bias in its authors. I've often heard it defined more broadly, encompassing all deities. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This could be about anything too. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
delete
[edit] * Misotheism *
Not specific to God, but relevant. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This could be about any God. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
delete
[edit] * Monism *
Not specific to God, but relevant. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't know enough about it. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
keep
[edit] * Nontheism *
See agnosticism. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Same as athiesm. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
delete
[edit] * Pandeism *
Debatable. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is like a middle ground between deism and panentheism which are both in the template, so if they are then it should probably stay. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
keep
[edit] * Pantheism *
Debatable. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There are different kinds but some definitely relate to God as God, it should stay. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
keep
[edit] * Polytheism *
Not related to God. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If the name of the template is going to continue to be "deities" then I don't see why this does not beloing, this is just a question of how many deities are there. This should stay or maybe the name of the template should change. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- We're talking about what would be included in a 'God' template. Ilkali (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- How is Polytheism "not related to God" but Deism, Monotheism, Panentheism and Henotheism are?!! If Polytheism is "not related", then neither are the others, which are currently figuring prominently at the head of the template! Weirdos...65.183.135.231 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
delete
[edit] * Theism *
Not specific to God, but relevant. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Theism is all about there being a God, I think this should stay. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong, wrong, wrong. Theism is about there being at least one god. It makes no reference to the specific set of entities called God. Ilkali (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
keep
[edit] * Transcendence *
Not specific to God, but relevant. Ilkali (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't know enough about the topic to really say whether it really belongs in this template, transcendence can apply to a lot of things. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
delete
-
- Natural theology also. As I understand it, we agree on the inappropriateness of a "God", if not necessarily "Deities" template, on the following:
-
- The following pages, IMO, could work with a "Deities" template, but I feel that a specifically monotheistic "God" template should be for specifically monotheistic subjects, and not subjects such as "Transcendence (religion)", which discuss non-monotheistic subjects such as Hinduism and Buddhism on equal terms.
Here are two (new) test templates for the rest:
| Part of a series on |
| Worldviews |
|---|
|
General approaches |
| Part of a series on |
| Religious belief |
|---|
|
General approaches |
Thoughts? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't pantheism, pandeism, and theism basically monotheistic concepts? They all have the assumption of there being one God. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're wrong about theism. Pantheism and pandeism are monotheistic, but whether their central deity is God depends on how we interpret 'God'. Ilkali (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pantheist is confusion with atheist. Important anyway. Pandeist is more liek Buddhist but with "God", any one single God creates. So keep.
- You're wrong about theism. Pantheism and pandeism are monotheistic, but whether their central deity is God depends on how we interpret 'God'. Ilkali (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:God (version 2)
Does this need to exist for any reason, or did someone just forget to G6 it? Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's just a redirect. I think someone forgot to G6 it. Care to do the honors? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Done --Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 01:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
