|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Deity has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital||(Rated C-class)|
|Today's articles for improvement|
Supernatural or superhuman?
“01:02, 11 June 2011 Mann jess (talk | contribs) (17,010 bytes) (Undid revision 433634278 by 184.108.40.206 (talk) No. Lots of things are "superhuman". This is explicitly "supernatural". Please don't [[WP:EW discuss on talk.) (undo)”
Supernatural means over-the-nature and more specifically *not part of the nature*. Let me quote the article:
“natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other 'acts of God', and miracles are attributed to them”
Miracles are things unexplicated by science (ethimologically it is synonym of wonder). Admitting deities, angels and so on exist, are these beings out-of-our-comprehension (in their particular conformation) or *not part of nature*? (note 1)
We must free the field from a "neo-positivistic" vision of nature. What is out-of-our-comprehension is not unnatural, and even if it should refer to other-than-human beings, it does not mean they are less *part of nature* than us.
About the other part it explains by itself. It says about ruling on natural phenomena, they are a deep inside *part of nature*. I shall be more clear. Juppiter rules on thunders and so on, Thanatos on death, Dike on justice, Robigus on rust, they have power on these things but it means their abilities and their specific nature are over-human-abilities and over-human-nature (superhuman - and also -maybe not forever- out-of-our-comprehension), not they are not *part of nature* like us.
Ultimately the whole concept of the so called "supernatural" must be revised. note 1: Semele, mother of Dionisus, asked to Juppiter to let her see him in his deity form. The myth tells she was disintegrated.
- Hi 87.19. We've been using this definition for a while, and we'd need sources to modify our fundamental definition. Generally speaking, I'm not sure that changing "supernatural" to "superhuman" is an improvement in describing the term, in part because lots of things are "superhuman"; Indeed, anything with abilities 'above' that of humans could be seen as such. Biological enhancements are one example, which clearly don't qualify as a "Diety". Supernatural, on the other hand, implies that a Diety is beyond nature itself, unlike the everyday things we encounter. Personally, I find this to be a more compelling definition. If you can find a source which supports your proposal, however, we would be able to discuss such a change to the lead. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- A source? Dictionary?
- 1. above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have: a superhuman being.
- 2. exceeding ordinary human power, achievement, experience, etc.: a superhuman effort."
- The 1st definition is (also) a deity. The 2nd, regarding deities, is what a deity can do.
- 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
- 2 - (god)(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon god, the Hindu god Vishnu
- - an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.
- - used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once
- excerpt from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/God
- see the link for deepening (I stripped just the first two definitions, bold highlighting is mine).
- If anyone has not anything to reply, I shall procede with the below amendetion in a week or a little more:
- "A deity is a recognized preternatural or superhuman immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.
- Deities are depicted in a variety of forms, but are also frequently expressed as having human form. Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal, and are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions similar to those of humans.
- They have power over one or more aspects of nature and/or human fortunes. Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other 'acts of God', and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of various aspects of human life (such as birth or the afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behavior, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe."
- Bold highlightins are the amendations. Maybe I shall do further wiki formatting like links and others.
Why not both?
I don't know if this thread was just left unclosed or not, but I enjoyed reading it so kudos to all those involved, but I would like to ask:
Why must it be either/or: "superhuman" or "supernatural"? The referent of this article is clearly both. I don't see why a sentence as important as this one can't make room for another word. Try it! you might like it better with both if we can find the right wording.
Who could argue that both of these adjectives are not true of this referent by definition? God is as clearly superhuman as he is supernatural. Who would revert such an edit? On what grounds would they object? You've both got enough WP:RSs to cite both many times over. By all sources, a diety is as superhuman as a superhero. Isn't it said that the referent is before, after, thoughout, apart from, and above nature, so what could be more super - natural? Chrisrus (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- This article says
whereas Proto-Indo-European says
In the reconstructed and hypothetical Proto-Indo-European...
That seems a pretty strong assertion of consensus within the relevant scientific discipline which, if accurate, lifts Proto-Indo-European above hypothetical. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The existence of such a language has been accepted by linguists for over a century, and reconstruction is far advanced and quite detailed.
- I've removed "hypothetical" as redundant per this discussion at WikiProject Linguistics. Angr (talk · contribs) in that discussion also says:
I haven't made the change to this because I couldn't support it, but I invite better informed editors here and at WikiProject Linguistics to attend to this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The sentence currently in the article Deity, "In the reconstructed and hypothetical Proto-Indo-European, humans were described as chthonian ('earthly') as opposed to the deities which were deivos ('celestial')", is simply mistaken: chthonian is not a reconstructed PIE word at all; it's an English word derived from Ancient Greek. And deivos is a very old-fashioned spelling for a reconstructed PIE word that most scholars nowadays would spell either deiwos or deiu̯os.
New section "Islamic view"
- I have added new section in the article for the NPOV, because it was needed.Justice007 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Definition of term "deity"
I can see how the lead might need to be amended a bit. The term "deity" unfortunately seems to be used rather interchangably with "god" in multiple situations, and that makes it rather harder to define the scope of the article and or the stated definition of the term. To support this, I quote the article on "Deity" written by Raimundo Panikkar in the Encyclopedia of Religion: "Deity is a word with a diversity of meanings. It is an ambiguous and often polemical word. The different interpretations that it has been given show that it is also a relative word." The reference book World Eras has an article by that name which so far as I can see doesn't even attempt to define the term. The 1988 Webster's New World Dictionary defines the term as "1. the state of being a god; divine nature; godhood. 2. -ties a god or goddess --the Deity God." Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary offers three definitions: "1. a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity b capitalized : god 1, supreme being 2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece> 3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful." I have also found it used as the English language equivalent/translation of murti by ISKCON and some other Hindu groups. Much of this could be addressed with a "see also" hatnote of course.
The predominant definition seems to be "divinity" or "godiness" or however one wants to describe the inherent nature of a god, as it is the first that appears in the Webster and the Merriam-Webster. So, basically, "deity" might be seen as being the defining characteristic of being a god. I'm not entirely sure that really qualifies for an encyclopedia article rather than just a dictionary definition.
Functionally, having looked over some of the reference articles on Highbeam that use the word, and a lot of them do use it, I get the impression that the term deity is in a practical sense used primarily as a synonym for "God" when speaking of polytheism of some sort. This can be seen I guess as making a little sense, because it might be more common to try to determine what specifically defines an entity as a "god" in polytheistic thought, rather than in monotheism, where there basically aren't any parties other than the monotheistic God him/her/itself who could reasonably be seen as necessarily possessing these defining qualities. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The quote in the second paragraph is a mess... vandalism? It says:
"a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans. but who interacts with humans. positively or negatively, in ways char carry humans to new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life.
religion and deity
Semantics aside, some religions do not have a deity at all. Hinduism is the big example - people amuse the archetypes at large, but the religious books are clear it is nature of existence itself that is God in specifically defined experience, relative to other religions like christianity or islam where it's all about "the Lord".
I think the people who deny God experience at large (like Richard Dawkings) are these days worse then the worst physical polluters. God-Experience = health*intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
"traditional belief" is redundant, vague and undefined
The lead starts "In traditional belief, a deity...". Traditional belief is vague and there is no article to explain what it might mean. I actually have no idea what it could mean (which tradition?). I tried to change it to "Religious belief" but it was reverted. I actually think it doesn't need a context as believers, non-believers and non-traditional non-believers could agree on a definition. I propose changing the first sentence to "A deity is a supernatural being who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred Bhny (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Prakrti hi bhagwan hai
Kyonki jo deta hai wo hai dewta
Ped poudhe hamesha hume kuch na kuch dete rahate hai dete jivan dan hai Rishiyon ne kaha ishwar har jagah vidhyaman hai Ttheek usee prakar prakriti har jagah upsthit hai karta kalyan hai Kaha gaya hai god swaso me basa hai Swas vayu prakriti ka hi ansh mahan hai Jal jo jivan deti hai Prkriti ki jaan hai Par manusyon ko iski nahi pahachan hai Jaise ek chor dusro ko chor sanajhata insaan hai Usee prakaar manav samajhta hai hamare jaisa roop ka hi bhagwan hai Deepak ki yah rachna prakriti ka gungan hai Prkriti hi bhagwan hai Yahi reet hai yahi vigyan hai Koi kahata bagwan na wiswanahi karte Ishme wiwash ki kya baat hai me bhi kahata hoon bhagwan hai Par hume uski nahi pahchan hai Yahi krisna god rabb khuda allah jan hai Prakrti ki hi den shri ram hai Prkriti hibhagwan hai Dk1252620@gmal.com 9540240945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there any minimum requirements for something to be called a Deity?
Let's say I want to make a new religion. How weak can a Deity be before it's not considered a Deity? Are there any specific skills or traits the entity must have to be considered a Deity, or is that all decided in each specific religion? Maybe the article should insert some minimum requirements for what a Deity must be or be able to do to be considered a Deity? If there are no limitations at all, it should perhaps be mentioned in the article?
Where did you get the translated word "god" from?
There should be a definite root to the word/name/title "god/God/GOD", what clan spoke it, why it was spoken and its meaning. Instead of making it a generic meaning to point to some higher being or supernatural human across ethnic groups. It already has a written attempt as a word that comes from the Old English in the Middle Ages, but what has not happen is what clan spoke it and therefor it still remains as a mystery as to where this word came from.
If its from the Middle Ages then we have In European history; the Middle Ages or Medieval period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century:
The clans of Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish, and West Saxon who ruled up until the Norman Conquest in 1066 which became the language and linguistics of Europe up to this day. So if "Deity" is suppose to be another or a character of a higher being and/or just another word for "god/God/GOD" then is should be traced back to its roots and what clan used it and for what reason.
Because as it stands now, no one has come up with its original source of use, root, why and its true meaning. Therefor it shouldn't be used in any literature as a translation.
The article seems to mostly ignore Polytheism and its history, and keeps repeating the definition of god in monotheism. Geographically, there is an emphasis on Indo-European and Semitic religions. There is no mention of the Ancient Egyptian deities, the Æsir, the Vanir, the Native American deities, the Aztec gods, the Maya Gods, and the Australian Aboriginal deities.
- @Dimadick: Ye gods! (yes, I actually use that expression) I've had this on my Watchlist for a while, but haven't actually looked at the article for a long time, and you are so right. I'll have to see if I can at least start adding material.
- In my copious spare time...
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Deity. 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/20121012153547/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/1/nation/5399211&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/1/nation/5399211&sec=nation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
BC vs BCE and recent edits
Recently, editor Nyttend changed all of the instances of BCE to BC and all instances of BCE to AC: . The justification for the change was consistency per WP:ERA. He/She did this even though there was only 1 instance of BC, but 6 of BCE (there were no instances of AD until his/her edit). I reverted his/her edit. I have now changed that one instance of BC to BCE because it seems to be the convention in the article. Note, furthermore, this is not an article about Christianity, per se, and for that reason as well I suggest that this is (ever so) slightly more appropriate. Any objections? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- WP:ERA doesn't prefer either one, but having both simultaneously is unacceptable. I don't particularly care which one you pick, as long as you stick with it. Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The application of the adjective "monotheistic" to the noun "God" seems like an error to me, but it's done more than once in this article. Once the notion is introduced that the singular "God" is intended to refer to the singular deity of monotheistic religion, there is no need to make this clarification repeatedly nor to OVERLINK to monotheism. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Monotheism, Catechism of the Catholic Church
@22.214.171.124: Welcome to wikipedia. The content must rely on mainstream reliable sources, per WP:RS guidelines. The Catechism of the Catholic Church you mention is a recent catechism of Catholic Church, inappropriate for generalization and does not overwrite the secondary and tertiary sources such as those published by Oxford University Press etc. Further, I looked into David Bordwell/Vatican's publications, was unable to verify it in at least two versions. Further, please see wikipedia's WP:NPOV and Wp:LEAD guidelines. If you have concerns, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"god" (I hate capitalizing the term when talking about monotheistic deities) is not known to be real. We can not say that he "does" have these or any other attributes. Only what attributes humans assign to him/her/it. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it does not even imply that he is real, it just says that he has those attributes. If I say that a unicorn has a horn, am I implying that it is real?Music314812813478 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Every single article on mythological archetypes talks about gods in this way (for example "Zeus sired several children") and no one ever complains about them, because it just does not imply their existence, like, at all. The only reason you are making his tweak is to serve your own whims, and it is not helping this encyclopedia.Music314812813478 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I undid an edit by Music314812813478, who had changed the headings for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim "deity" to Jewish, Christian and Muslim "God." The fact that a deity is found in the Abrahamic tradition does not warrant a different heading; Wikipedia is neutral on deities, and all should receive identical treatment in an article on deities.
- Apparently it didn't work out quite as I intended, but it's completed now.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Deity" for Abrahamic religions is appropriate; the Abrahamic deity does not get special treatment. He is not especially noteworthy in this context--see WP:NPOV. If you want "God" for the Abrahamic one, then we'd need to have "God," "Gods," "Goddesses," "Gods and Goddesses" etc. There is no reason to use anything but "deity" or "deities" on the page entitled "Deity."
- You have re-entered your edits; I'm going to ask you to undo them until a consensus is reached. See WP:BRD.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Music314812813478:, I would appreciate it if you would either explain why the Abrahamic deity deserves special treatment such that we should ignore Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or undo your edits. In an attempt to maintain appropriate collegiality, I have refrained from undoing your edits again; please engage.
- Surely there are other editors who would care to weigh in here?
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, the monotheistic deit yis the only one that is being drnated. When Aristotle could not find evidence for polytjeistic deities, he settled for a monotheistic first mover. Second, monotheism is generally held as being a step up from polytheism by sociogists.
You thinking that the monotheistic (not Abrahamic) deity is the same as other deities is just you following your whims. Aside from the reasons above, there is no consensus for the existence or non-existence of the monotheistic deity, so if we are to be neutral, we have to distinguish between plain deities and monotheistic deities.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what "drnated" means.
- Aristotle's limitations do not carry any objective weight. Just because he could not justify polytheism does not thereby render polytheism inferior to monotheism.
- I don't know what sociologists you're talking about, but (a) claiming monotheism is a "step up" from polytheism is utterly insupportable without begging the question, and (b) Wikipedia has a specific Neutral Point of View policy. If you're not familiar with it, I encourage you to look it up. It is one of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and does not get cast aside for any particular religion, religious outlook, or individual editor.
- This isn't about my "whims." This is about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. It doesn't matter whether there is consensus about the existence of a monotheistic deity or polytheistic deities; Wikipedia does not take a stand on the subject. Your edits and your comment about something not being "fitting" indicate you believe that monotheistic deities should be accorded some kind of special treatment in Wikipedia articles, but I'm afraid this is not the case. Treating monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, henotheistic, panentheistic etc. deities the same is precisely what neutrality is about. I cannot imagine how you conclude otherwise, but please do feel free to explain your reasoning.
- I have no idea what you mean by distinguishing between "plain deities and monotheistic deities." All are deities, and in Wikipedia none receive preference.
- I'm not trying to be contentious or rude here, but we do need to follow Wikipedia's policies. If you wish, we can seek some kind of dispute resolution; Wikipedia has a plethora of options.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- ikipedia takes a stance on a subject, and it takes the stance of the consensus.NPOV is not neutral. You are breaking NPOV by using "deities" for Christianity. Besides there does exist an overwhelming consensus against polytheistic deities. As Richard Dawkins said:"nobody believes in Jupiter anymore." Polytheism has been reduced to fringe sects or untouched uncivilized hunter-gatherer tribes. On the other hand, debate for the monotheistic deities exist.Music314812813478 (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- NPOV is, by definition, neutral. That's the first word; Neutral.
- I am not breaking NPOV by giving all deities under discussion the same headings. How do you conclude otherwise???
- Richard Dawkins knows not whereof he speaks. I am personally acquainted with any number of polytheists. Check out articles on modern Hellenism, Celtic Reconstruction, Wicca, Kemetism, etc. Referring to religions as "fringe sects" and hunter-gatherers as "uncivilized" are further indications that you are not taking an NPOV approach. Polytheism is, in fact, undergoing a resurgence across the world.
- Again, using "deity" for monotheistic religions is absolutely NPOV. You have yet to present any kind of argument (as opposed to assertions, of which you have provided plenty) to the contrary.
- I am resisting the temptation to simply make the edits, out of respect for Wikipedia policies. I understand you are taking your stance in good faith and sincerely, but you're also presupposing some kind of special status for monotheistic deities that is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
- Am I correct in concluding that there is nothing I can say which will persuade you?
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 05:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just because it contains the word "neutral" does not mean it is neutral. Wikipedia is neutral towards polytheists the same way it is neutral towards bigfoot. A resurgence of polytheists across the world does not mean that there is no scientific consensus against such things. If people across the world came to believe that the Earh is flat, does that mean Wikipedia should abandon scientific consensus? Besides the article lead already makes clear that monotheistic deoties are deities, and what it needs is to make clear the distiction between plain deities and omnipotent deities, and using "God" is perfect for the job.Music314812813478 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia is neutral toward monotheism the way it is neutral toward polytheism, pantheism, henotheism, animism, etc. There is no scientific data for or against the existence of any deity.
- I'm not saying monotheistic deities aren't deities, obviously. I'm saying they are not granted special status different from polytheistic ones in a neutral encyclopedia.
- From an objective point of view, there is no distinction between "plain" and "omnipotent" deities; a deity is a deity, and Their attributes don't make some more deities than others.
- I ask again; is there anything I can say that will convince you to accept a neutral point of view and title all sections "deity?"
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 07:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC
- That is just your stance on the issue. Virtually all intellectuals have mutual agreement over the non-existence of poltheistic deities, because polytheistic are not omnipotent, omniscient, incorporeal and incomprehensible, attributes possessed by monotheistic deities, over which there is still considerable debate. Wikipedia cares only for scientific or philosophical consensus. There is a consensus against polytheistic deities, and no consensus for or against monotheistic deities. Have you ever heard any debates about Zeus? We have no article about the debates over polytheistic deities, because there aren't any. In fact, one of the aguments against the monotheistic deity uses the fact that all the polyheistic deities have been proven false, in order to assert that the monotheistic deity might be proven false in a future era; this reinforces my argument that there is a strong consensus against polytheistic deities, and that there is no consensus for or against the monotheistic deity. Thus, the monotheistic (not necessarily Abrahamic, ever heard of Zoroastrianism?) is distinct from polytheistic deities, and this distinction should be made clear.Music314812813478 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know which "intellectuals" you've been reading, and frankly I don't care (they were doubtless steeped in the fallacious presumption that monotheism is automatically superior to polytheism, a cultural blind spot that ignores countless cultures, including Shinto, that hold a contrary view). There is exactly as much scientific evidence for monotheistic deities as for polytheistic ones: zero.
- Yes, I'm familiar with Zoroastrianism, but I only saw you edit the Abrahamic ones. I've stopped referring to Abrahamic deities, since it looks like you worked your magic on the Zoroastrian one too; I just didn't notice. Stop carping on that, please.
- Polytheistic deities have not been "proven false." This claim is utterly insupportable. This article is not about the (non)existence of any type of deity. The (non)existence of one or more of the deities mentioned is irrelevant to the article. Please stop carping on this, too.
- The simple, clear point is that Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and giving monotheism a special place is. not. neutral. If "deity" is inappropriate for monotheistic deities, then They should not be included in the page at all. You don't get to have it both ways.
- You have not answered my question about whether you are susceptible to any kind of persuasion, but it's clear you are not susceptible to persuasion by me. I will request assistance in resolving this, as I mentioned above, from one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution services.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesnot care about the truth or neutrality whatsoever, it solely and only cares about the consensus of scientists and intellecuals. If you are looking for equal weight for all positons, this is not the site for you. NPOV is not neutral; it just means that sentences do not directly state positions as facts, but NPOV definitely does not give weight euqally to all positions. It is just your stance that the existence of polytheistic deities have not been proven false; most intellectuals do not think that. Wikipedia does not care about neutrality at all. You just completely and entirely ignored the mountain of support that I have given for the fact that polytheism has been proven false. There are no debates about polytheistic deities. There are no people who have come forth and tried to present evidence for Zeus. I never said this article was about the existence of any deity, what I said is that we should make a distinction between poly thesitic and monotheistic deities.
- Also, "there is no scientific evidence for polytheistic deities just like for monotheistic deities" is just your stance on the issue, and Wikipedia does not care about your opinion. Even if you are correct, there is still no consensus for the existence or non-existence of God, and Wikipedia only cares for scientific or philosophical consensus. And philosophical arguments are also used, for which many intellectuals have proposed for monotheism,and none at all for polytheostic deities. There are no debates going on about Shamanism. There are debates going on about monotheism. Simple as that.
- Give me a very notable modern intellecual who tries to argue for the existence of Zeus, and I will agree with you.
- Also, sociologists generally DO agree that monotheism is step up from polytheism. I do not have to cite any, the books in general are on my side. Music314812813478 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- I believe you are mistaken on several points.
- Second, Wikipedia manifestly does not restrict itself to "scientists and intellectuals." Wikipedia is open to any editor. Editors with specialized knowledge are not granted special status. Information must be based on reliable sources, is all.
- Third, I have indeed addressed your assertion. Calling Allah, for example, the "Islamic deity" is entirely appropriate and NPOV, because it does not distinguish between types of deity. That's neutrality, just as one would not grant one type of dragon or spirochete special status even if one happens to prefer it. You have made multiple assertions to the contrary, but all I see is claims that are perilously close to Special Pleading.
- You have given no "support" for your alleged "fact" that "polytheism is false." You have asserted it repeatedly and firmly, but provided no actual evidence, because no such evidence exists. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, this article is not about the (non)existence of any type of deity, even though you keep bringing it up as if it were relevant. From a scientific and neutral point of view, the (non)existence of any deity is unfalsifible, and therefore not a proper subject of science (cf Popper). If you are actually interested in reviewing arguments in favor of polytheistic deities, you might want to look at John Michael Greer's book "A World Full of Gods. However, again, that is not relevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that those who were indoctrinated in the assumption that monotheism is the default setting for "religion" will quite naturally not argue for the existence of non-monotheistic deities. This, too, is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
- Your assertion that sociologists consider monotheism somehow "superior" to polytheism remains unsupported (and irrelevant). The position itself is probably insupportable, in fact, depending on how one defines "superior." Furthermore, even if argument from authority weren't a fallacy, sociologists are not theologians. Saying you don't have to produce evidence is handwaving, a fallacious debate technique that won't fly here, particularly since none of this is relevant to the subject at hand, which is maintaining a Neutral Point of View.
- >I do not wish to engage further in debates or discussion about whether polytheism is superior or inferior (or, correctly) equal to monotheism.
- >I do not wish to engage further in debates or discussion about the (non)existence of any type of deity.
- This nonsense is driving us far afield from the subject at hand, which is, as I said, maintaining a Neutral Point of View. You have yet to back up your assertion that giving special preference is somehow "neutral," despite multiple requests from me; simply restating your position is not the same as providing support.
- As you may have noticed, I have requested assistance on this discussion, as neither of us appears likely to persuade the other. It might be best if we cease engaging here until outside help arrives. If it is important to you to have the last word before that outside help arrives, I will not respond further; just say so.
- NPOV is not neutrality. Wikipedia is not neutral towards unicorns and chupacabras.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Second, I never said it does. What I said is that obky thw opinions of intellectuals are what Wikipedua cares about. Anybidy can edit Wikipedia, but Wikipedia only carea about the opinions of intellectuals and scientists. Editors cannot insert their opinions, nor can they stylize an article according to their own opinions even if they site a reliable source. There is a rule forces editora to abide by the scientific consensus and not their own opinions on real-world issues.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Third, you did not even read my assertion. My assertion is that using " deities" for Christianity implies polytheism and thus violates NPOV in every single possible way.
- My job is not to give you evidence against polyheistic deitiea, my job is to give you evidence that nearly all intellectuals believe that pagan deities do not exist, and I have, and it is that: we do not have articles on debates about polytheistic deities, because such debates are trivial. "This topic is controversial" does not even appear on the talk page for Zeus, or nearly all pagan deities for that matter.
- Whether or not this article is about the existence of any deity is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that a distinction is made between monotheistic deities and plain deities.Music314812813478 ([[User :::talk:Music314812813478|talk]]) 21:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- And finally, just get the point that NPOV is not neutrality. And please stop pretending hat I have been trying to make this about polytheism and monoheism, I was just using those arguments to bolster my position that a distinction between monotheistic deities and polytheistic deities should be made.Music314812813478 ([[User :::talk:Music314812813478|talk]]) 21:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- And furthermore, WP:NPOV explicitly states that it is about what reliable sources publish, NOT views the editors or even the general public even have, so please stop misinterpreting Wikipedia's openess for editors, which clearly has nothing to do with the way you measure and word the content that you put in. Wikipedia does not care for your opinion on a real-world issue,and I have repeated this because you just refuse to get the point. Just citing a reliable source isn't enough, because there are those intellectuals who are reliable but perform mental gymnastics so that they could maintain their beliefs despite the overwhelming consensus against such beliefs; thus,generak consensus among intellectuals should also back you up.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- And let me just tell you that giving equal credence to both polyheisti deities and monitheistic deities is a violation of WP:Undue weight. Polytheistic deities are not controversial at all because polytheism has lost all power over intellectuals. Monotheism,on the other hand... Again,I am not tryong to arue over the superiority of one over other, I am arguing for the distinctuon that his article should make. Why would the thought that I am trying to argue for the superiority of one over the other cross anyone's minds is beyond me.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Arguing for authority is only a fallacy if you talk about real-world issues, and you ise he authority to assert truth. Since intellectual consensus is king and keeper of Wikipedia, I can cite intellectual consensus all day here, so long as I can cite them for the purpose of showing people what articles could say. Also, not citing any is not the same as not providing evidence. If I asserted that the intellecual conaensusis that mammals evolved from reptiles,do I have to cite anything? Furthermore, sociologists study the evolution of the field of philsophy and the reasoning of human beings and society, and the consensus is that monotheism is easier to justify than polyheism,(hence the Aristotle example I mentioned above) and are thus relevant here, moreso than theologians are, as theologians are oftentimes (with the exceptions of theologian-philosophers or theologian-scientists) neither scientific nor philosophical, but spiritual, and spirituality does not have a consistent methodology, nor is there any consensus among intellecuals that theology is even a logically or rationally sound field, thus, we arguably CANNOT use theologians, unless they are also philosophers or are also scientists, or unless the article talks about the beliefs of a religion or a spiritual sect, because it would violate WP:NPOVMusic314812813478 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- I can see we are not going to be able to conduct a serious discussion here. I have neither the time nor energy for another futile attempt to change your mind. I will not continue to swing off onto the wild tangents to the main point, which is maintaining a neutral point of view, of which I believe my interpretation is more appropriate in this context (obviously). I will wait until we can get some other editors involved here.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, by typing "(obviously)" in your comment you have proven that you have no choice but to poison the well. That is just you being sure of yourself and refusing to get the point, as well as trying to make it out that my responses,which are full of typos, are not serious,ignoring the weight of my statements. WP:Undue does not allow you to edit based on your stance, which you claim is permissible so long as you cite a reliable source. Wikipedia policy makes clear that only intellectual consensus should be allowed to influence our edits. You incorrectly interpreted Wikipedia's allowing all kinds of people to edit to mean that anyhing aside from the consensus of intellectuals can influence what we put in; it just means that anybody can edit Wikipedia.
You putting " deities" to imply that Christianity is polytheistic not only makes this article violate WP:NPOV, it also defies the official definitions of Christianity, all of whom describe the religions as monotheistic.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I will finish this response by reminding you that no Wikipedia article over the debates over the existence of any polytheistic deities exists-THAT is how trivial polytheism is.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am not trying to poison the well; my use of "obviously" was an indicator that my position is obvious, not that it is obviously true (although I do, obviously, consider it to be so). Please remember to assume good faith as I have done, and as is standard for Wikipedia. Kindly do not attribute such inappropriate motives to me.
- Likewise, I have not mentioned your typos once. I have tried my best to be civil. I do not consider accusing me of poisoning the well to be civil; do you? I did not accuse you of not being serious; you are obviously serious. Again, please do not attribute to me motives I do not hold. However, I do consider you to be in error in this case, which is an opinion I can legitimately hold and espouse.
- You accuse me of violating WP:UNDUE. I have not violated WP:UNDUE any more than you have. Again, please maintain civility and refrain from accusing me of things I have not done.
- I do not want the article to say "Zoroastrian deities," "Christian deity," etc. I merely want it to approach the subject from a neutral point of view with an impartial tone (which I should probably have used earlier in this discussion), which requires all deities, monotheistic or otherwise, to be given equal consideration in this article. Accordingly, the heading should be "Zoroastrian deity," "Christian deity," etc. Since the article is about deities, then it should make reference to deities in the headers. If you think monotheistic deities should be removed from the article because they are gods and not deities, you may, of course, be bold, but I do not think that edit will stand.
- For your final point, Wikipedia is not about debates. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The fact that there are no debates in Wikipedia about the existence of polytheistic deities means exactly nothing. If you consider polytheism to be so "trivial," do you then want to delete all articles about polytheistic religion, polytheistic reconstruction, and polytheistic deities? Either the subjects are worthy of inclusion, in which case the article must take a neutral point of view, or they are not, in which case you should recommend them for deletion. Your call.
Special Treatment for Monotheistic Deities
I have been engaged in a discussion with Music314812813478 regarding whether the term "deity" should be applied neutrally to all beings discussed on this page, or whether monotheistic ones should be called by some other name (specifically, "God"). Please see the foregoing discussion "Nomenclature."
It is my assertion that whether deities are monotheistic or otherwise does not matter, and that a neutral point of view requires that they all be given the same appellation on this page. Music314812813478 disagrees, arguing that the term "deity" is not "appropriate." We have not been able to reach a conclusion despite much spillage of virtual ink. I have refrained from re-editing to avoid edit warring, which I think would probably happen if I did, but have also been unable to persuade Music314812813478.
I am therefore requesting assistance from other parties to review this situation, engage in the discussion, and perhaps raise points that we have not discussed.
- Polytheistic or monotheistic, they are all deities. I do not see any distinction in this topic. Whether it is Anu or Yahweh or Nut, they are all ancient deities. Dimadick (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just because they are all deities does not mean that they are all the same, nor does it imply they are equally likely to exist. Once again, quoting Dawkins "nobody believes in Jupiter anymore". There may be a resurgence of polytheism, but such is like a resurgence of belief in a flat Earth.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Here is some info that is very much relevant.
- As @Ian.thomson: said in the God talk page:
- The article for any given god is Deity. This is specifically for the (not a, the) supreme being that many religions agree upon the existence and even major attributes of (e.g. omniscience), even if particular religions have an additional attribute or two the rest disagree with (e.g. Trinitarianism) and even if all religions disagree over which one this deity favors. The term "God" (capital G) is applicable to Allah/YHWH, Ahura Mazda, Brahman, Nzambi a Mpungu, Olorun, Shangdi, Tengri... Any singular transcendent being within a religion who is regarded as the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ground of all being or source of existence; but not non-transcendent figures (unless they are considered avatars or incarnations of transcendent or pantheistic figures, like Krishna). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note that even the existence of a God article implies that the monotheistic deity is very much disinct from polytheistic deities. In fact this very article already makes the distinction in the lead; what we are debating here is whether we are going to make the rest of the article affirm this distinction as well, and if we are to be a consistent encyclopedia, we have to.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- If we use "deity", we will have no choice but to use "deities" for Christianity, which implies polytheism and breaks NPOV in every single possible way, and it also defies official definitions of Christianity, all of whom describe it as monotheistic. Music314812813478 (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Septegram has not yet proven how using "deities" for Christianity somehow does not imply polytheism.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let me just tell you all that if this is going to work, you all have to show me, if you happen to disagree with me, how it is okay to use "deities" for Christianity, etc. WP: VOTE forbids the counting of opinions.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- As I have repeatedly said, I do not want to have the article say "Christian deities," but "Christian deity." Did you somehow miss that? Has this argument been over naught? I do not wish to imply that Christianity is polytheistic (that's a debate for other people in another place).
- And your tone when you say "let me just tell you all" what we have to do is starting to sound like you own this article and will make decisions about how it will be edited. I'm sure that's not your intent, but let me suggest a little more care in your tone.
- 03:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- An exclusive use of "God" in monotheistic religion sections of this article, with no use of the term deity in those sections is problematic, because of the WP:RS (see The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons by John Calvin, 1, etc; even in other contexts). Similarly, an exclusive use of "deity", with no mention of God in monotheistic religion sections of this article is problematic, given the WP:RS (2, 3, etc). Are we trying to unnecessarily make this an "either or" thing, take sides? Instead of summarizing the different sides from the reliable sources? Consider presenting both sides, reflecting the term used by the cited RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input; how do you suggest we summarize different sides in a header? That's the entire matter at hand: whether the headers will say "Zoroastrian God," for example, instead of "Zoroastrian deity." My point, without asking you to wade through all the verbiage in the foregoing article, is that the term should be "deity" in order to maintain WP:NPOV and impartial tone
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- For section titles, Christian deity is okay, or consider Christian deity/God as a compromise. Same for other monotheistic religions. Another option is neither. Simple section titles suffice per MOS: instead of "African deities", use "Africa"; instead of "Buddhist deities", use "Buddhism"; instead of "Christian God/deity", use "Christianity", etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think "Christian deity/God" would work because it still gives monotheistic deities special treatment, which is inappropriate. However, I'm very impressed with your other suggestion. Thanks for an inspired bit of lateral thinking! That did not occur to me, and it probably should have.
- Part of me wants to be vindicated (for I continue to believe I am correct in my position), but I need to suppress that for the good of the encyclopedia. I would be willing to go with the compromise of removing both "deity" and "God" in the headings. I would make them all the same, probably using an adjective such as "African," "Christian," etc.
- @Music314812813478:, would you accept this compromise?
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Ms Sarah Welch's second suggestion for the section titles: Eliminate deity/god altogether and use Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Funcrunch (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- All the above. Sounds like a way around it has been found, but for what it's worth, I take deity as meaning either a god or the God, and it could also refer to the nature of godhood, or be metaphorically someone exhalted as supremely good or powerful. WP:COMMONNAME would lean towards the Christian God, but I suspect that is English-specific. Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lfstevens: There is a cite error in citation fourteen (Wilkerson, W. D. (25 April 2014). Walking With The Gods). There are probably other errors, but I have no idea where they are. You made so many changes that I cannot keep track of them, an issue which is further complicated by the fact that I am honestly not sure what you were even trying to do in the first place. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed it. I started by adding urls for books that didn't have them, adding page #s to the googles where possible (and converting them from urls to shorter and easier to read templates, and moving multiply cited refs from the text to the bottom where they are easier to find and manage. I will now set about copyediting, which is what I came here to do in the first place. Hopefully with fewer typos. Lfstevens (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see. That sounds like a great plan! --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm withdrawing from this project. I can't do this efficiently with so many others jumping in. I leave not in anger, but in awe of the amount of energy this seemingly obscure and staid subject attracts. Keep up the great work, folks. Lfstevens (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I note that none of the hundreds of improvements I made are now in the article. I hope you will rescue them. Lfstevens (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm withdrawing from this project. I can't do this efficiently with so many others jumping in. I leave not in anger, but in awe of the amount of energy this seemingly obscure and staid subject attracts. Keep up the great work, folks. Lfstevens (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see. That sounds like a great plan! --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)