“That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different. Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. Verily thy Lord is the Expounder, the All-Wise.

Know thou, moreover, that the Word of God — exalted be His glory — is higher and far superior to that which the senses can perceive, for it is sanctified from any property or    substance. It transcendeth the limitations of known elements and is exalted above all the essential and recognized substances. It became manifest without any syllable or sound and is none but the Command of God which pervadeth all created things. It hath never been withheld from the world of being. It is God’s all-pervasive grace, from which all grace doth emanate. It is an entity far removed above all that hath been and shall be.”

(Baha’u'llah, Tablets of Baha’u'llah, p. 139)

I see no reason to worry as long as January is greater than God.

Also note that this only reflects the frequency of appearance in the New York Times. Any further interpretation is an extrapolation.

Also, they’ve updated the post with comparisons with “all” and “the”, for you January-doubters out there, with no great change in trend.

Being a HM fan (and narrow atheist), I’ve always thought it odd that HM totally disrespects the very term that it largely relies on for its very success.

Look at the author’s chart where he picked two more words (blank, meaning all articles, and “the”) there are some funny features. The God/January ratio has the same “smile” shape as the other two plots shown, but the noise is a little different. More disturbingly, although the “God/all” and “God/the” ratios dip and rise in the same places, they are sometimes almost equal, but other times “God/the” is at least 50% higher than “God/all”. If you take that literally, it means that sometimes (in the late seventies, for example) less than two thirds of the articles printed in the New York Times contained the word “the”. It calls into question the accuracy of the data.

It might also be interesting to consider the random components of this data. Imagine that writers have a certain probability of using the word “God” in an article. Then the total number of articles that use the word “God” has an expected value of , with the probability of mentioning “God”, the number of articles printed, and the expected number of articles mentioning “God”. There is also a random error that goes something like . If the Times is printing 100 articles a day, and 1% use “God” (as the plot linked above suggests), then the random error in the fraction of articles mentioning “God” comes to about . Eyeballing that chart, it looks like the random variation is bigger than that – from year to year it hops more than 5% (that’s 5% of the value plotted, so from 2.0% of all articles to 2.1%, for example). It would be interesting to do some sort of low-degree polynomial fit to approximately model the “smile”, and then see how large the remaining random errors are, compared to the estimated 5%.

I gather Albert Einstein was committed to peace, and it was very hard for him to come to terms with the need for atom bomb to bring peace in war time. So a pantheist ( scientist or not) can be committed to peace and a fortiori ethical values, or ethical global values.
What then is the difference between a pantheist and atheist, if the word God is not mentioned. God is a word, but what is the attitude and belief or philosophy that underlies pantheism as opposed to atheism that makes them distinct and different that people claim atheism and nothing to do with theism.

I speak as a non theist, still trying to crack the code, of nature of reality, according to Buddhism, where the Madhyamaka school concerned about nihilism asserted that it is the Middle Path between eternalism and nihilism. Andrew Skilton (1994, 2008) A concise history of Buddhism : speaking of that school at p 117 “…. nothing has ultimate existence, the world which we live in does exist as the product of passing conditions. He attacked the idea of inherent existence, not conventional existence. The conventional world is real, not illusory, but is radically impermanent, and can only be described as conventionally true.” And of the contradictory school , I think it goes something like, there is a permanent core that is ultimately real, and that accounts for the permanent seed of Buddha nature in every person and everything, even grain and a blade of grass. It appears to me there is a close parallel between pantheism and the latter view where there is a permanent seed that is of ultimate reality and a unity ( in Buddhism) if as it appears in pantheism, since God became universe, there is a unity of all things in the universe for it or they are God or part of God.

It seems like humans like or need to ponder over the nature of reality. A kind of seeking to understand our selves, our environment, other people, our role in this 100-120 years on earth. So I do not think the God question will go away, but the nature in which it is pondered over, conceptualized, may take different shape in different environment, and at different times even in same locality.